MASTER 
NEGATIVE 
NO. 91-80120-2 





MICROFILMED 1992 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 


| as part of the | | 
”Eoundations of Western Civilization Preservation Pro ject” 


Funded by the 
~ NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 


Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
Columbia University Library 





COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 


The copyright law of the United States -- Title 17, United 
States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
reproductions of copyrighted material... 


Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 


accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 





AUTHOR: 


ECKMAN, GEORGE 


TITLE: 


CONTROVERSIAL 
ELEMENTS IN ... 


PLACE: 


NEW YORK 


DATE: 


1899 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 





Master Negative # 





Restrictions on Use: 


FILM SIZE: 


IMAGE PLACEMENT: IA A By _ IIB 


DATE FILMED: 


Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 


25° @ "¥: ye Γ᾿ «¢ γ δ 


Eckman, George P,eck, 1860-1920. 
Controversial elements in Lucretius ... 





(Printed by C. B. J ackson 1899. 
1p. 1,121 p. 22%. . 


Thesis (pH. p.)—New York univ. 
Bibliography: p. 3. 


99811 


Library of Congress 











TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 


REDUCTION RATIO:__// 








INITIALS 7 © 





FILMED BY: RESEARCH SUBTICATION S, INC WOODBRIDGE, CT 











8} 2} 5} 5} 5 


alll sil 3} 21 


w 























Suite 1100 





ation and Image Management 


1100 Wayne 








vt wo ait Ὁ 
(. oon 
€ a 
“cerns παι 
᾿ 


Avenue, 








301/587-8202 


= 











Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 


25 

















MANUFACTURED TO AIIM STANDARDS 
BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 


3 


2 


YZ 


G 


Centimeter 


HH 


oN 

















το porter Si Gann conga λίαν,» Ree οφνδνοδν 











gESET Ty 





ears 








Tea 7 " 


πα πα ον 














ΗΝ 





ial 


rovers 





) 
Wig 





4 
{΄ 
1 





1 





nai ΠΣ ΤΈΤΌΟΝ 











ἘΠ 






By 
Ἢ 
te 


= 3 
= ; 
δα - “: 
—_— » - 
= τὸ , : : 
“ τὰ ven 
= > - ᾿ Ε τς 
τῶν ον 2 2 ; 43 
ΕΞ Θ ᾿ a 
ε eS 
> : 
: a) 7 ' : 
τ : 
ἐν * - 
μὰν ᾿ + 
“ + 
Ps ᾿ς - 
7 ¥ 
4 


they 


ΠΗ ΡΗ 


ὦ: 
" 
























. - : 
᾿ Ὁ 4 - ᾿ 
“ 
»- : 
bs δ - 3 Ξ 
ee Ξ 
᾿ - 
oe. 4) 3 
7 ie i 
are - ᾽ 
~~ re 
ζῶν 
ἊΣ Ἐς "ποτ 
oe) * Σ ae ches 
. -. —~* Kshs 
. Ἂς ΕἾ ᾿ ty - τε μα. Ter rr aa Hee. - ΟΝ ἰδ ἃ κ΄ ἐς Se ae oe 
"πον = ᾿ - 7 oe os ~ “Ὁ . - ν᾽ - - Ti dt ah ας RO ae ste + : ASS ce Shite 
1 
Ἀ Fi 
4 A τ 
ΓΙ H ἐς : ὡ 
hs . 
1 Φ a 
* μ᾿ . - 
ad . 
Ε od S ἊΝ 4 a ἑ 
ΡῈ a 
Γ᾽ fo" 5 * oe. . 
* r . ᾿ - ‘ 
. - 
᾿ r oe i 
» . , - 
» és ὡ» “ν 
δ 
. 
1 aie 
ν ~ 
© F a 
ν + a 
‘ ΄ 
; τ ‘ = 
- 
. 
- τ 
5 . 
. 
cm > 
ὦ z $ 
͵ 
. ‘ 4 ΜΡ ΐ 
- 
5 , 
= . 
° 
. ες 
Η ξ ξ 
7 3 
΄ 
‘ 
. ἘΞ 
τ , 
‘ 
* ᾿ ω ͵ Η XN 
if t sf . 
i ἡ. 
' 
» ' 
ῃ F . ͵ 
ἢ ᾿ ἢ < “ 
᾿ » 
‘ t i . ᾿ ; ‘ ι 


te treme 


-- πος wa a b+ fame » 
ee = τ “ , TIS FEY, 4 pre Sb 
BEET ΠΣ ΤΌΣ ἰδέ ων Ἰρε σε νεεὶ LEE {85 {Ὲ 1:5: ET ded 
Τὰ ας καρ... 2 =a Snes fee 


ΟΣ ead ahd sees 
TL al ite 
mattass So ae an anenconeang reap : 


ἰόν. ΠῚ ΤῊ 


> 
» 


ity of Aew Dorl 
GIVEN BY 


Columbia Guiversity 
the © 


mm 


4. 














ae .. 


“τὰς 


Ὶ Lid ΌΣ we 
THE ἔσει ΕΥ̓ ΓΤΡΈΣΕΣ ᾿ 
Staca t "ER see Hy PALL Γι 
ΜΗ - 

7 











Fontroverstal Elements in Lucretius 


A THESIS 


FOR THE 


Doctorate in Pbilosopby 


GEORGE P. ECKMAN 


APPROVED BY THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE 


OF THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, 1897 


New YorRK 


Ι[δ00 


SCHOOL 











Εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ηἡνώχλουν 
καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ 
μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυ- 
μιῶν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας. 

᾿Εἰπικούρου Κύριαι Δόξαι, ΧΙ. " 





A. 


CONTENTS. 


fable of Contents. 
INTRODUCTION, 
(‘ONTEMPORARY INTERES! IN It ICUREANISM. 


Character of the period. Causes of the apparent neglect of 
Lucretius by his contemporaries. Influence of Epicureanism 
upon cultivated Romans. Reasons for Cicero's comparative 
silence regarding Lucretius. Recognition of the poet ὃν 
later generations. 


A PRELIMINARY QUESTION, 


To what extent did Lucretius pursue original Investigations ? 
The poet's devotion to Epicurus., Evidences of servile imita- 
tion. Marks of independent treatment of physical pheno- 
mena. No extreme position tenable. Divisions of the present 
isc uSSION. 


PHILosoPpHERS WitH Wuom Lucretius CONTENDS AMICABLY. 


Respects for early physicists. The main contention, 


7. Empedocles, Object of Lucretius’ admiration. Internal 
evidence that Lucretius studied the works of kim pedocles. 
Hallier’s proofs. Similarity of literary style. Rhetorical 
imitations. Doctrinal agreement. Resemblances in explana- 
tions of physical phenomena. Unquestioned indebtedness of 
Lucretius. Hostility to Empedocles as representative physi- 
cist designating one or more substances primordial matter. 
Various points of conflict. Void and motion. Incompetent 
primordia. Fallibility of the senses. Mortality of the soul. 
Teleology. 


2. Anaxagoras, Evidence of high esteem of picurus for 
Anaxagoras. Common ground occupied by Anaxagoras and 
Atomists. General lines of divergence. Sympathy of Lucre- 
tius with Anaxagoras. Instances in proof. ‘The doctrine of 
the Aomoeomeria the real issue between Lucretius and Anaxa- 


goras. The theory expounded. Objections of Lucretius. 
Void ignored. Infinite divisibility of body. Defective pri- 
mordia. Secondary qualities in primitive matter. J//n7ma. 


A pair of dilemmas. 


280145 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS | K y. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Democritus. The obligation ol I picurus to the philoso- 
pher of Abdera. Ingratitude of the former. ‘The more 


commendable spirit of Lucretius. Kulogisti¢ lines. ‘Traces 

of the pressure of Democritus upon Lucretius. Harmony of | 

veneral principles. The doctrine of emanations. The sum- BIBLIOGRAPHY 

mum bonum. The sexual passion. Earthquakes. Imitations 

of Democritus. The extent of Luc retius’ acquaintance with OF THE CHIEF WORKS CONSULTED IN THIS DISCUSSION. 
his Δ ritings. Chief doctrinal disagreement. Atomic declina- 

tion. Free-will. Arguments of Epicurus and Lucretius. 

Minor occasions of controversy. Infinity of number and 


Constitution of the soul. Origin of verbal DioGENEs Laertius—De Vitis Philosophorum, Vauchnitz, Leipsic, 1895. 


shapes of atoms. 





ssionations. The rising of the Nile. The gods. ees — : ae 
designatio ¢ Cicero. Marcus TuLttius—De Natura Deorum, De Finibus, etc., 


+ 


11. PurtosopHers Toward Wuom Lucretius Is HostILe. Teubner, Leipsig, 1894. 


The censoriousness of Epicurus emulated by Lucretius. RITTER ET PRELLER—Aistoria Philosophiae Graecae, 7th Edition. 
7. Heraclitus. Alone denounced name. ‘Taunt of ob- 
scurity. Avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius to- 
ward Heraclitus the latter’s assertion that fire is the original _Muwro, H. A. J.—Z! Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura, Yext, Notes, 
essence from whic h everyl ng has been derived. (Order of 


Gothae. Ι[δδῶ, 


εὐ κα | ay 
J ang etc., “d., Cambridge, 1592. 
Lucretius’ arguments. Is the poet’s treatment of Heraclitus | "5 
just? Character οἱ his elemental fire. Hypothesis of conden- V Zevcvter, E.—Pre-Socratic Philosophy; Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 
sation and rarefaction. Void eliminated. Change by extinc- 


Ν. ᾿ , ey London, 1892. 
t10Nn. Doctrine ol the senses. lransmutation ol primitive 


matter. Heraclitus and the Stoics. UsENER. HERMANN Lpicurea, Leipsig, 1887. 


2. The Stoics. Antagonism of Lucret an inherited pas- _—Trurrer, W. S.—H story of Roman Literature, London, 1873. 

sion. Mutual calumnies of the St and Epicureans. age ees . eh 
Irrepressible conflict on the subject of nature. Specific | FarrBANKs, ArtHuUR—Zhe First Philosophers of Greece, New 
points ol eontroversy. : ‘rties and accidents. Corporeal- York, 1r8o8&. 

ity and reality. Elemental 4 he structure and course 

of the universe. Infinity of space and matter. Theory of Settar, W. Y.—Roman Poets of the Republic, 34. Edition, Ox- 


— 


centripetal force. Immortality and divinity of the world. ford, 1880. 
Cosmic svstems. The world as a living organism. Destruc- 
tibility of the world. Theological positions. The character Hatter, AEMILIus—/ucreli Carmina ὁ Fragmentis kmpedochs Adum- 
and functions of deity. ic ideas of creation and provi- brata, jena, 1857. 

repose and happiness : τς 
of the gods. Likewise disproved by the imperfections of Mommsen, THEopoR—Aiis/ory of Rome. New York, 1875. 
agp The desire ea Se irom the fear ol divine Massox, Τοην--- 776 Alomic Theory of Lucretius, London, 1884. 
interference the basic reason for Lucretius argument against : erm 
Providence, Only valid ground for 8. ientific study. Final 
Cause denied. ‘rue philosophy ΟἹ the vods, Myth of 
Kybele. Epicureans and Stoics in relation to popular re- 
ligion. Stern denunciation of prevalent superstition. ΔΡ- 
parent inconsistency οἱ [Lucreti 








ὃ. note 2. 


line 4, 


line 
line 
line 
line 
line 
line 
line 
line 
line 


line 


line 7 


line 


line 
note 
line 


line 


CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


CORRIGENDA 


read p/urimis instead of plurimus, consulere not considere. 
read Catius Insuber. 
26, read καίτοι instead of καὶτοι. 
2, read ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλεῖ; ἀναγκαῖον [or ἀναγκαῖον. 
read gueun/ instead of quent. 
0. read στείροις instead of OTE POLs. 
22. read yupvol instead of γμυνοὶ 


, 2, read πενητεύοντα instead of TEV TEVOVTA, 
22, read φησὶ instead of nol. 

27, read τὸ ὁμοιομερές instead ΟἹ τὸ dporopepeta, 
read deprauare instead of depruare. 

read βίβλοις instead of βίβλιοις. 


read πρῶτον instead οἱ πρῶτων. 


I, read munguam instead of memquam,; remove period after 


\y 4,072} 
Chrysippam. 
2. read vocadéa/ instead of 
2, read Praefato instead of Prefato. 


1d, read τούτων Instead Οἱ τούων. 


> 11, read πρόληψις instead of πρόληφις. 


LUNTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS 
IN 


LUCRETIUS, 


INTRODUCTION. 
CONTEMPORARY INTEREST IN EPICUREANISM. 


IT cannot be denied that the poem of Lucretius failed to awaken any 
marked interest until long after its publication. The almost unbroken 
silence of his contemporaries regarding him is significant of the com- 
parative indifference with which his production was received. The 
reasons for this neglect are various and not far to seek. In the first 
place the moment was inopportune for the appearance of such a work. 
‘It was composed in that hapless time when the rule of the oligarchy 
had been overthrown and that of Caesar had not yet been established, 
in the sultry years during which the outbreak of the civil war was 
awaited with long and painful suspense.""' The poet betrays his sol- 
icitude for the welfare of his country at this crisis in ‘the introduction 
of his work, in which he invokes the aid of Venus in persuading Mars 
to command peace— 

Lifice ut interea fera moenera militiar 


Per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescant?— 


and acknowledges that his attention is diverted from literary labors by 


the exigencies of the state: 


Vam neque nos agere hoc patriat tempore iniquo 
Possumus aequo animo nec Memmi clara propago 


Talibus in rebus communi desse saluts.* 


Munro believes these lines were written toward the close of 695, 
when Caesar as consul had formed his coalition with Pompey and 
when there was almost a reign of terror.*. The reflection of a state of 


'Mommsen, //7st. Rome, 
*L 2. 30. 


*I, 41-43. 
‘Munro. Lucretius. 11. p. 











CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


tumult and peril is equally obvious in the opening verses of the second 


book. where the security of the contemplative life is contrasted with 


: ve | τος, cnet NEEL πεῖναν re 
the turbulence of a political and military career, Particularly signifi 
cant are the lines : 

St non forle luas legiones per loca camp 
Fervere cum videas belli simutacra cienhs, 
Subsidits magnis οἱ ecum vt constabilitas, 
Ornatasque armis Statuas parilerque animalas, 
His tibi tum rebus timefactae religiones 
Effugiunt animo pavide ; mortisque limores 
Tum vacuum pectus lincunt curaque solulum, 


Fervere cum videas classem laleque vagart.’ 


It can readily be appreciated that a period of such fermentation 
and alarm would afford opportunity for philosophic study to those 


alone who were able to retire from political excitements to private 


Moreover the Very ¢€ harac teristic S of the I pic urean 


leisure and quiet. oft cur 
philosophy would recommend it chiefly to persons of this description. 


Participation in public life was distinctly discouraged by the school 
of Epicurus, who regarded the realm of politics as a world of tumult 
and trouble, wherein happiness—the chief end of life—was almost, 1 
Thev counselled entering the arena of publi 


affairs only as an occasional and disagreeable necessity, or as ἃ pos- 


not quite, impossible. 


sible means of allaying the discontent of those to whom the quiet of 
a private life was not wholly satisfactory.* Such instruction, though 
phrased in the noble hexameters Ὁ ‘a Lucretius, was scarcely calculated 
to enjoy immediate popularity in the stirring epoch of a fast hurrying 


revolution. * 


1 Sellar, Roman Poets of the Δ᾽ public, p. 290. 

211, 40-47. ‘* Caesar after his consulship remained with his army for three 
months before Rome, and was bitterly attacked by Memmius. Does Lucretius here 
allude to Caesar?’”’ Munro, 1], p. 122. 

3 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 491, 3, 0. 

«+ In consequence of his mode of thought and writing being so averse to his own 
time and directed to a better future, the poet received little attention in his own 
age.” Teuffel, A/ist. Rom. Lit. I, 201 Eng. Tr.). ‘* It (Epicureanism) arose in a 
ae of society and under circumstances widely different from the social and 


political condition of the last phase of the Roman Republic.”” Sellar, Roman Poet 


f the Ri public, p. 357: 


INTRODUCTION. 


A somewhat ingenious, but unsuccessful, attempt has been made to 
account for the indifference with which Lucretius was treated on the 
ground of his assault upon the doctrine of the future life. It has 
been suggested that as the enmity of the Christian writers was earl) 
called down upon his head for this cause, he was likewise whelmed 
‘under a conspiracy of silence on the part of his Roman contempo- 
raries and successors” for the same reason.’ But so general was the 
skepticism of his age on this question, that it is scarcely credible that 
the publication of his views could have seriously scandalized the cul- 
tured classes who read his lines. ‘The same judgment will hold truc 
with reference to the entire attitude of Lucretius toward the tra- 
ditional religion. It is a sufficient answer to the theory that his in- 
fidelity created antipathy toward him to record the fact that Julius 
Caesar, than whom no more pronounced free-thinker lived in his day, 
was, despite his skepticism, pontt/ex maximus of the Roman common- 
wealth, and did not hesitate to declare in the presence of the Senate 
that the immortality of the soul was a vain delusion.” That he rep- 
resented in these heretical opinions the position of many of the fore- 
most persons of the period is the testimony of contemporary literature. 

Shall we not find the better reason for the apparent neglect of 
Lucretius in the era immediately following the issue of his poem in 
the fact that there was no public at this juncture for the study 
of Greek philosophy clothed in the Latin language ? Cicero, who de- 
voted himself with the zeal of a patriot to the creation of a philosoph- 
ical literature in his native tongue, complained of the scant courtes) 


paid to his efforts. Mon eram nescius. Brule. cum. quae summis 171- 


genus exquisitaque doctrina philosophi Graeco sermone tractavissent, ea 


Latinis literts -mandaremus, fore ul hic noster labor in varias reprehen- 
stones incurreret. Nam quibusdam, et tis quidem non admodum indoctis 
totum hoc displicet, philosophart. Quidam autem non tam id reprehenduni, 
st remissius agalur, sed tantum studium tamque mullam operam ponendam 
in co non arbitrabantur. Erunt etiam, et 1 quidem eruditi Graects litteris, 
contemnentes Latinas, qut se dicant in Graecis legendis operam malle 
consumere. Postremo aliquos futuros suspicor, qui me ad alias litteras vocent, 

''This is the view advanced by RK. T. Tyrell of the University of Dublin. See 
his Latin Poctry, p. 74, (Houghton, Mifflin ἃ. Co., N. Y., 1895). 

’Merivale, //istory of the Romans, Il, p. 354. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


genus hoc scribendi, elst sit elegans, personae famen et dignitatis esse 
negent.' Yet this work, as he explains in his De Divinatone,’ 
was undertaken with the commendable purpose οἱ benefitting 
his countrymen. He anticipated with delight the advantages 
which would accrue to them when his researches were com- 
plete. Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ul 
Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant.” And later he reaped his re- 
ward in an awakened interest in the subjects of his studious inquiries. 
but he was compelled in the beginning to cultivate a sentiment in 
behalf of those investigations. Lucretius addressed himself to an un- 
sympathetic public, and was likewise required to wait for applause 
until a more appreciative generation rose up to do him honor. 

Yet it must not be supposed that Epicureanism exercised a feeble 
influence over the thought of cultivated Romans in this period of 
their history. The very theme which engaged the genius of Lucretius 
had also employed the energies of predecessors and contemporaries. 
Among attempts of this character were the De Rerum Natura of 
Kgnatius, which appeared somewhat earlier than the work of Lucretius; 
the Empedoclea of Sallustius mentioned by Cicero in the much dis- 
cussed passage relating to Lucretius; and a metrical production en- 
titled De Rerum Natura by Varro. Commentaries on the principles 
of Epicureanism had also been extant for some time. Chief among 
the authors of such compositions was Amafinius who preceded 
Lucretius by nearly a century. Our knowledge of him is mainly 
derived from Cicero, who says: (Οἱ Amafinius exstitit dicens cuius hbrts 
editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissinum disciplinam.® 
Rabirius is also mentioned by the same author as belonging to that 


class of writers, Quit nulla arle adhibita de rebus ante oculos positts vol- 


'De Fintbus, 1. 1. 


* Guaerentt mihi multumque et diu cogitanti, quanam re possem prodesse quam plu- 
͵ 4 


rim@ges, ne quando intermitterem considere reipublicae, nulla maior occurrebat. quam st 


oplimarum artium vias traderem mets civibus,; quod conpluribus iam libris me arbitror 


conseculum, . . « Quod enim munus ret publicae adferre maius meliusrr po 


5, Quam st docemus atgue erudimus tuventutem? his praesertim moribus alge 


temporibus, guibus tta prolapsa est, ete. Ul, 1, 2. 
’De Divinatione, 11. 2. 


‘Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic. p. 278. 


» Acad. Ι. - q. 








NTRODUCTION 


vari sermone disputant.'— Kabirius indulged in a popular eaten 
of philosophy and covered much the same ground as Amannias. 
Another contributor to the literature of Epicureanism whom Cicero 
records in no complimentary way is Catius Catius Tnsuber, Epicur- 
eus, qui nuper est morluus, quae ile Gareettius etiam ante Democritus εἴδωλα, 
hic spectra nominat.* | 
The interest in this school of philosophy among Komans ol the 
time of Lucretius is further apparent in the prominence which cer- 
tain Epicurean teachers attained. Conspicuous among them is Zeno 
the Sidonian, whose lectures Cicero in company with Atticus had at- 
tended on the occasion of his first visit to Athens, 70 to 70 τ 
whom he calls the prince of Epicureans in his De Natura Deorum,” 
and whose instruction is doubtless liberal!) embodied in Cicero's 
discussions of the system of Epicureanism.* Contemporary with 
Zeno was Phaedrus,® who had achieved distinction in Athens and 
Rome. in both of which places Cicero studied under his direction. 


Somewhat later Philodemus® of Gadara appeared in Rome, and Is 


—sentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man. Che consider- 


able body of writings bearing his name found in the Volumina Her- 
culanensia’ indicates his position among the philosophic instructors 
of his day. Sevro* a follower of Phaedrus, said to have been the 
teacher of Vergil - Patro® the successor of Phaedrus, who taught in 
Athens: and Pompilius Andronicus," the evrammarian who gave up his 
profession for the tenets of Epicurus, were eminent also at this period. 

Partly as a result of the activity of these teachers of philosophy, and 
partly on account of the prevailing anxiety to arrive at some satis- 
factory scheme of life, the number of disciples of Epicurus steadily 
increased at this time, and included not a few illustrious names. 

\7usc. Disp., IV, Ὁ. 

:4d Fam., XV, 10, 2. 

1. 211. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, X, 25. 

! Ritter et Preller, //ést. “ἢ. Graec., 447. 

‘Ad Fam... ΧΊΠ, 1. 

6De Fin., UW, 35, 119. 

7 Ritter et Preller, Δ “Δ Gracc., 447. 

1d. Fam. VA, 11. 


94d. Fam.. XU, 1. Ad Attic, V, τι. 
υ Zeller. Sf¢ le Be fe pire CANS and Sceptt δ μ. 414 Ι 





I¢ CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


: " ᾿ς 7 l 
These are known to us chiefly through the writings of Cicero,’ who 


mentions ἢ \lbutius, Velleius, C. Cassius, the well-known conspirator 


against Caesar, who may himself be classed among those who had 
as *¢ " « we . ᾿ 


Ι ; i s P Galbus. L. Piso, the 
lost confidence 1n the gods,” ©. Vibius Pansa, Ga S 


of Philodemus, and L. Manlius Torquatus. Other notable 


patron ‘ap i 
| as Epicureans by Cicero, but 


personages are apparently regarde¢ 


orave doubts have been expressed concerning their real attitude 


toward the school. It 1s barely ossible that Atticus may justly be 


for he calls the followers of Epicurus 


denominated an Epicurean, : ἢ 
nostri. familiares” and condiscipull.' But his eclectic spirit 


would 


seem to forbid his classification with Al) single system, and Zeller 


δ Diet eA ἘΞ Γ 
feels that neither he nor Asclepiades ΟἹ Bithynia, a contem pol ry O 


| ~ re 7 "ee lS, 
Lucretius, who resided at Rome and was as ciated with Epicureans 


can be regarded as genuine disciples ΟἹ kpicurus. 


} ‘picur hi iN Jeorum, 
he discussions ΟἹ the Epicurean philosophy m De Natura Deoru 


7 . Ἵ ἢ She } Ἰ > } . “\( ἡ ho { he 
De Finibus and other works of Cicero evince the pl! found interes 


‘ral ] le - . j rie he 
had in the school, though his general atuituce Wa one of unfriend| 


ness What reason, then, we id) ASK, Call be given for his almost 
uninterrupted silence concerning ucretius ¢ he only reference we 
have to the poet in all Ciceros \ Juminous Compositions occurs In a 


᾿ ‘ 8 6 - } » | . + | > AT { : ‘ ΚΟΥ 1S, 
letter to his brother Quintus, four months after the death ol Lucretit 


. | at oo . Ἢ ΝΑ 
in which he says, Lucretit poemata, ul scr ia sunt: multis luminiou 


incentt, multae ellam artis: sed cum vener 
E'mpedoclea legeris, hominem non pulaoo, hese words certainly imply 
that both Marcus and Quintus had read the poem, and many scholars 
i \ Δ < N < 


᾿ Jer . in his additions » Eusebian 
accept the statement of Jerome in ἢ] additions to the Kus 


| ; ‘a Ses 
chronicle—guos Cicero emendavil—as applying to Marcus. But if he 


was closely enough identified with the work of Lucretius to edit his 


manuscript, why in those writings wherein imple opportunity was al- 


forded did not Cicero mention his labors 11} the field of philosophy ἡ 


ι Zeller, Sloies, ΤΙ ΟΜ ΩΝ and Scepl 
Merivale, //ist. Kom., Il, pp. 3! 
‘De Fin., VN. τ, 3: 
‘Lege., 1, 7, 21. 
Stoics. Epicureans and Sceplics, Ῥ. 415. 
64d Ouintum, 11. 11. 
7 Munro pp. 2-5 who discusses this questio1 with his usual lucidity, incline 


to the opinion that Jerome, following Guetonius. has indicated M. T. Cicero as the 


is virum Le putabo, st Sallusta 


INTRODUCTION. Il 


This is a particularly pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that he does 
speak of Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, as we have already observed, 
and that he devoted so much attention to the discussion of Epicur- 
ean principles. Munro answers this question by declaring that it was 
not Cicero’s custom to quote from contemporaries, humerous as his 
citations are from the older poets and himself; that had he written 
On poetry as he did of philosophy and Oratory, Lucretius would have 
undoubtedly occupied a prominent place in the work, and that more 
than once in his philosophical discussions Cicero unquestionably re- 
fers to Lucretius.!. Munro is not alone in contending that the liter- 
ary relations between Lucretius and Cicero were more or less intimate. 
Other critics have traced to Ciceros Aratlea important lines in 
Lucretius, while many passages in Cicero closely resemble utterances 
of the poet. Martha quotes several remarkable parallels between De 
Finibus and various lines in Lucretius.’ But it is argued on the other 
hand no less vigorously that didactic resemblances prove nothing, ex 
cept that Lucretius and Cicero wrought from like sources their several 
Latinizations of Greek philosophy. 

And herein there is suggested a possible explanation of Cicero's ap- 
parent indifference to the poet, whether he did him the favor of edit- 
ing his verse or not. Cicero had made an earnest study of Greek 
philosophy long before the poem of Lucretius had been introduced 
to his notice. He had resorted to original authorities for informa- 
tion concerning Epicureanism. Zeno the Sidonian and Philodemus 
of Gadara, as already noted, had supplied him with much material. 
Everywhere in his philosophical works there is evidence that he re- 
varded himself a sort of pioneer in this peculiar field of investigation, 


editor of Lucretius, and that this was the real fact. Sellar, Roman Poets of the 
Republic, pp. 284-6, though suspending judgment does not deny the probability 
that M. T. Cicero performed this favor for Lucretius. Teuffel, //ist. Rom. Lit., 
I. 201. 2, while expressing doubt concerning the evidence of Cicero’s connection 
with the poem, declares that at any rate his ‘‘ part was not very important, and it 
mivht almost seem that he was afraid of publishing a work of this kind.” Prof. E. 
G. Sihler, N. Y. University, presents an argument of great force against the prob- 
ibility of Cicero’s editorship. See Art. Lucretius and Cicero. Transactions Amer- 
ican Philological Association, Vol. XXVIII, 1897. 
'Munro, Il, pp. 4; 5- 


>M. Constant Martha. Le Zoeme de Lucrece, + uoted in Lee’s Lucretius, Ὁ. xiv, I. 
| 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCKETIUS 


and therefore deserving Οἱ the pre-eminence therein. He doubtless 


placed no importance upon any Latin Δ ritings beside his own which 


treated of this class of Greek culture. Indeed the references which 


he has made to persons engaged in an unt 
And Lucretius would only be esteemed 


lertaking similar to his own 


are in no instance flattering. 
by him a competitor im the same department of inquiry, who wrote 


in Latin verse instead of Latin prose. 


Keeping these facts in mind the comparative silence of Cicero re- 


carding Lucretius does not seem wholly incompatible with the theory 
of his editorship. He was himself an expositor of Epicurus—and 


that too of the hostile kind. He had ‘ popularized the Epicurean 


doctrines in the bad sense of the word.” and. had thrown “ἃ 


ludicrous color over man) things which disappear when they are more 
seriously regarded.” Yet his opposition to the tenets of Epicurus 
would not preclude him from friendly association with many who 
and if asked to lend his name to the publication of 


professed them, 
could be no reason for withholding it. But 


Lucretius verses, there 


if his antagonism to Epicureanism would lead him to speak against 


the doctrines of the poem, his admiration lor the literary exc ellences 
of the work, as exhibited in his willingness to stand sponsor for its 
‘ssue, would deter him from adverse criticism. Silence in such a 
Case is the best evidence of friendship. 

\Ilommsen? remarks that *‘ Lucretius, although his poetical vigol 
as well as his art was admired by his cultivated contemporaries, yet 
remained—of late growth as he was-—a master without scholars. © 
But with increasing knowledge in what 1s best in Epicurus and a 
fner taste to appreciate the moral and literary virtues of Lucretius, 
subsequent generations Fave ample recognition to the poet. Horace 
and Vergil were greatly influenced by him, particularly the latter, who 


19 supposed to refer to Lucretius in the famous lines : 


Felix qui potuil rerum Cognoscere ὁ ausas, 
Afque metus omnes et nexorabile fatum 


Subiecit pedibus streplumqu Acherontis avart. 


i tanee, Z/isfory ὁ Materialism. \, p. 127 (Eng. I 
é Hist. Rome, ΙΝ. > Oj). 


᾿ Georgica 11. 490 . 


INTRODUCTION. 


Ovid pronounced words ot high eulogy upon him : 
Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucrett 
Exttio terras cum dabit una dies." 

The persistency of the Epic urean school of philosophy despite perse- 
cution and opposition down to the fourth centuee AD demon- 
strates its marvelous vitality and the almost deathless influence of 
the personality of Epicurus, whose single mind projected its grasp 
upon human thought throughout the whole existence of Oe sea 
And not the least important agent in affecting this result, because οἵ 
his almost idolatrous devotion to his master and the persuasive sie 


of his lines, was the poet Lucretius. 


A PRELIMINARY (QUESTION. 


Before entering specifically upon an examination of the contro- 
versial elements in Lucretius, it will be important to inquire to what 
extent. if at all, the poet may be regarded an independent worker in 
the field he has chosen. ne 1s impressed from the very beginning 
of his study of Lucretius with his profound moral earnestness. He 
is impelled by an absorbing passion to emancipate the human inhale 
from the terrors induced by the fear of death and the tyranny of super- 
stition ‘The constantly recurring application of his doctrines to the 
soul of the convert he hopes to make leads him into frequent rep- 
etitions of his constant aim, and should dissuade the student of 
Lucretius from attaching too much significance to his iterations else- 
where. In the scheme of the poem Epicurus is the savior of man-" 
kind. and Lucretius is his prophet. His entire energy seems to be 
devoted to the effort to render intelligible the pr cess of KE picurean- 
‘sm in delivering men from irrational terrors. [{ 15 pertinent, there- 
fore, to inquire whether it 1s probable that a man of such missionary 
zeal, who is consumed with a desire to propagate the theories of his 
master, would go out of his way to study other systems of philosophy. 
Is it not natural to infer from our knowledge of his characteristics 
that his acquaintance with rival schools of thought would be mainly 
if not exclusively, derived from ἃ perusal of Epicurus, and that he 


would deal with them from the traditional Epicurean point of view? 





14 CONTROVERSIAI ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


there any evidences that Lucretius engaged in independ- 


In short are 
k his exposition of philosophic 


ent research, when he undertoo 


doctrines ? 

Scholars have arrayed themselves 
Woltyer’ of Groningen represents one 
himself utterly to the Latinization Οἱ 


‘n extreme positions on this 


question. leading view, and 
maintains that Lucretius gave j 
In support of this theory there are undeniably strong 
The exordia of Books I1i. V, VI, furnish 


‘Tucretius to his master, 


Epicurus. 
declarations in the poem. 
ample marks of the almost slavish devotion οἵ 


and the whole ps em breathes the Same spirit. He professes only to 
imitate the peerless Epicurus : 


EF. tenebris tants tam clarum extollere lumen 


Out primus poturstt intusirans commoda vitae, 


o Gratae gentis decus, ingue luis NUNC 


Te sequor, 
Ficta pedum pono pr ssts vestigia Signs, 
Non tla certandt cupidus quam propler amorem 
Quod te imitart aveo. 
He sees in him the highest human intelligence : 
Our genus humanum ingenio superavil el omnis 
Restincxit, stellas exorlus ul a thertus sol.” 
His glory can never fade : 
Cutus ef extinch propter divina reperta 
Divolgata velus ram ad caelum glo? ta fertur.” 


No honor can be too great for such a man: 


Nam si, ut ipsa petit marestas cognila rerum, 


Dicendum est, deus tlle fuit, deus, inclyle Memmi.” 


Hence Lucretius will follow him explicitly 
Cuius ego mgressus vestigia dum rationes 
Pe requor ac doceo dich, quo quaeque creala 
Foed re sint.” 
\Lucretii philosophia cun fontibus comparata, Groningae, 1597- 
PHI, 1-5. 
‘Il, 1043. 4. 


INTRODUCTION. I5 


It is apparent from the whole tenor of his production that Lucretius 
makes no claim to originality, his frequently avowed purpose cia 
to disclose the method of picurus for the redemption of the ies ᾿ 

Moreover such ἃ procedure is in_ perfect accord with the conven- 
tional usages of the Epicurean school, among the disciples of which 
there was mere dogmatic iteration of the original propositions of Ep- 


] “ar 
were preserved 


icurus. The κύριαι δόξαι, quoted by Diogenes Laertius, 
expressly to be stored away in the memory of his adherents. 5o con- 
vinced was he of the value of his doctrines that he required not only 
these fundamental aphorisms, but whole summaries of his philosophy 
to be learned by τοῖο" His last words were : τῶν δογμάτων nition.” 
Such was the extravagant honor conferred upon Epicurus by his dis- 
ciples that not only was his birthday observed by them during his 
lifetime, but the twentieth of each month was kept in celebratie ἢ of 
him and Metrodorus.* Following the exhortation of a master to 
whom he was so deeply attached, Lucretius would be disposed to 
cling tenaciously to the expressed tenets of Epicurus, and would not 
be inclined to venture beyond them. 

This tendency to adhere inflexibly to the teachings of their founder 
was manifest in the remarkable sterility of production among later 
Epicureans, from the death of the master to the age of Cicer ᾿ This 
barrenness is particularly noticeable when contrasted with the fruit- 
fulness of the Stoic school during the same period, as witness the 
names Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Boethus, Panaetius, Posidonius and 
others.» One reason for this unproductiveness lies in the fact that 
Epicurus, while he dogmatically laid down his atomistic physics, had 


at the same time ἃ positive aversion to precise, specifi Ὁ detailed study 


of natural phenomena, as ‘t is best seen by a close examination of 
> > νγ" ) y » ; , ᾿ ᾿ 
the letter to Pythocles, in which he summarily disposes of the 
questions relating to τὰ μετέωρα. A survey of this presentation of the) 
Epicurean doctrines on the facts of nature reveals a feeling that 
er., X, 139-154. 
: ὃς. 110. 
"7... τὸ. 
t Zeller, Apicurcans, Sfotcs and Sceptics, p. 419, 2. 
>» Ritter οἵ Preller, TTist. Phil. Graec.. 422 20. 


6Diog. La Lt » 8 o4. σῷ. 





10 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


exact scientific knowledge is both impracticable and unnecessary, In 


ἡ viven case a variety of reasons may be offered in explanation, and 
τ : ᾽ ᾿ Ι ee Ἂ . ’ 
the student is at liberty to take his preference. Without an earnest 


purpose to study the facts of nature until they disclose the one and 


only interpretation for each phenomenon, there can be ho real 
pre ress ‘n science. The instances are not wanting In which a little 
deeper penetration into these facts of the universe On the part οἱ 


Lucretius would have announced to the world in his day discoveries 


which were reserved to a much later period of time. 

So convinced are some critics that Lucretius made no advance 
upon Ipicurus, hut contented himself with a servile Latinization of 
his Greek master’s productions, that they even assert he obtained his 


iccount of the plague at Athens from Epicurus and not from Phu- 


eydides. But from this extreme statement there seems to be reason 
for dissent. Would Epicurus, who was himself an Athenian resident, 
ivine but a hundred years alter Thucydides, misunderstand the 
historian as Lucretius gives evidence of A comparison Οἱ 
Chucvdides I], 47-54 with Lucretius VI, 1135-1250, will show sev- 


. ) »} o> 1fy] ( “ 1 Ο γ᾽ \ | - 
eral instances in which the poet has either wl ully or ignorantly mis 


For exal ple observe the differen¢ e petweelh 


represented his model. owe 
this declaration of Thucydides τῶν ye ἀκρωτηρίων ἀντίληψις αὐτου 
ἐπεσήμαινε' κατέσκηπτε γὰρ ἐς αἰδοῖα καὶ ἐς ἄκρας χεῖρας καὶ πόϑας, καὶ πολλοὶ 
στερισκόμενοι τούτων διέφυγον, εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἱ Kau τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν΄ and the verses 
of Lucretius on the same matte! 
lamen tn nervos huic morbus el artus 

Thal ef m parts genttalts corporis ipsas. 

kt craviter partim metuentes lima let 

lvebant ferro privati parte vi 2, 


kt manitbus sine nonnulli pedibusque manebant 


U'sque adeo mortis mortus his incesserat acer.” 


In view of the intense desire of Lucretius to turn to account every 


opportunity tO point a moral, is it not possible that he purposely 


'Compare the statements ΟἹ Epicurus recorded by Diogenes Laertius, X. 91-115. 


with Lucretius VI. Cf. FE. G. Sihler. ryansactions Am. Phil. Ass.. Yoo. 
7... Bello Peloponnesiace, \\, 40. 7, ὃ f. Munro. Il. pp. 391-401. 


c 


INTRODUCTION, 


perverted this passage from Thucydides in order to reinforce his pe sition? 
The misery of the plague-stricken victims wassuch that suicide would 
seem to be reasonable and desirable; but fear of death—that ever- 
present terror of men’s lives—withheld them from this and induced 
them to deprive themselves of certain diseased members that life 
might be prolonged. 

There is another extreme view regarding the question under dis- 
cussion, which is represented by those scholars who maintain that 
Lucretius was a man of great independent research. ‘These men 
light uncritically upon any point of doctrinal identity, particularly in 
Book VI, and forthwith are eager to ascribe original investigation to 
Lucretius.’ There can be no doubt also that ‘‘he was endowed not 
only with the poet's susceptibility to the movement and beauty of the 
outside world, but also with the observing faculty and curiosity of a 
naturalist ὁ but it must be ever kept in mind that distinctive Ep- 
icureanism does not consist of the study of the minutiae of physical 
facts for the purpose of presenting a well articulated system of natural 
philosophy, but is practically the metaphysical employment of ob- 
served phenomena to demonstrate the folly of fearing the gods or 
death. It is necessary alw ays to differentiate the γνήσιος φυσιολογία of 
Kpicurus, which is substantially given in Books I to earlier parts of V, 
from the specific elucidation of physical phenomena in Book VI, which 
agrees, SO far as these are concerned, with the letter to Pythocles. ” Un- 
questionably in the field of physical research Lucretius does evince 
some traces of independent investigation. But there is little if any 
evidence that in what may be called the true Epicureanism he is sim- 
ilarly self-reliant. 

As to the general question of originality of treatment, it 1s clear 
that a middle ground between the extreme positions herein illustrated 


must be adopted. Some personal study of Empedocles, as will be 


1 Vide Paulus Rusch: De Posidonio Lucreti Cari Auctore in Carmine De Rerum 
Natura V7., Greifswald, 1882 [a doctor’s dissertation], who tries to trace points 
in Book VI even to Posidonius. Rusch is evidently aware of his oddity, for on 
p. 51 he says: Vadld temerarius fortasse visus sum, quod temptavi carminis poeta: 
Romani, quem strenuum Epicurcum /urss: οὐχὶ docti persuasum habebant vel etiam 
Sforcum auctorem nionstrare. 

*Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 2092. 


‘Diog. Laer.. X. 84. sqq- 





CONTROVERSIAL ELI MENTS IN LUCKI ΓΙ, 


᾿ Ὅι “dl te ἱ ‘T1US. And doubtless 
seen hereaiter, Must be accredited to Lucretius 


ther philosophers, such as Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, and 


vel lat ) WeTCc inves Ϊ ᾿ ited by L1C poe 1Ol 1} nselt. | . 
C - { τς . = ν. 


ilwavs remain true that the chief service which Lucretius rendered to 


| tation 1 active form of the teachings 
hilosophy was the presentation 1n an attractive lo 


f Kpicurus whe. to judge from his literary remains, Was utterly in- 


capable of producing 1} exposition (>| his CT εἰ SO) admirable in ever\ 


ined - Rerum Natura? Lucretius perhaps 
way as that contained in the 7) Rerum Natura.’ Lucre | 


.dded nothing of importance to the Epicurean system, but he 1m- 


to its heavy, mechanical 


parted ι wondrous vitality and buovancy ἃ 


ar ¢ trines. 


. Sd r . position which Lucretius 
An emphatic variation Is observable in the position hic 


assumes towards the leaders ΟἹ the Several schools ol philosophy 


which he criticises. The bulk of his lise ussIOn touching these 


chemes of thought 1s found in Book I, though marks of controversy 


ire discoverable throughout the entire poem, 
iy exhibits a spirit alike friendly and ap- 


In these p ylemical 


passages Iucretius occasiona 


ie τὰ ὡς a ae a 
preciative towards the champions ΟἹ faiths hostile to his own, thoug 


: invelg itter against se whose doctrines 
more frequently he inveighs bitterly agains those 


oppose the tenets of Epicurus. In this disposition to hates fairly his 
antagonists, the disciple excelled the teacher; for picurus had ap- 
parently become so blinded by personal vanity, and so intoxicated by 
the ‘dolatry of his followers, as to be no longer able to discern any 


feature of excellence outside his own narrow circle of speculation. 


Lucretius, on the other hand, shows a commendable desire to give 


= | T acilitate - discus- 
honor to whom honor is due. It will perhaps facilitate our 


sion of the controversial elements in Lucretius τ we consider first 


those points of contact between the poet and the subjects of his 


criticism which reveal a sentiment of friendliness, and secondly 


those which betray an unmistakable attitude of hostility. 


I Munro. ΕΣ. 
: Masson, 


PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 


Ι. 
PHILOSOPHERS WITH WHOM LUCRETIUS CONTENDS AMICABLY. 


In placing his discussion of the Pre-Socratic Physicists in the very 
fore-front of his poem Lucretius has shown a distinctive trait of his 
school, which is also amply illustrated in the Vo/umina Herculanensia; 
for Epicurean teachers were evidently in the habit of commencing an 
exposition of their own doctrines by making a criticism upon other 
systems of natural philosophy.’ But mere conformity to a tradi- 
tional method is not a sufficient explanation of the poet's introduc- 
tion of controversy at such an early stage in the development of his 
theme. ‘There was an immediate occasion to justify the procedure. 
Lucretius has sometimes been accused of being too belligerent, of 
forcing a conflict when the reasons for warfare were somewhat 
obscure.” Perhaps he does sometimes bristle with steel when no 
enemy is visible, but surely this complaint cannot be lodged against 
him with propriety in this instance. For the long polemical section 
beginning at I, 635, appears to arise out of the very necessities of 
Lucretius’ argument. It must be remembered that his chief aim is 
to cleanse human life and deliver the soul of man from the terrors of 
superstition, which he believes are engendered by ignorance of the 
constitution of nature, of the origin of the material universe and of 
the causes of natural phenomena. ‘These mental disturbances are 
only to be conquered by letting in the light of reason upon the pro- 


cesses of nature. 


Hunce igitur terrorem animi lenebrasque necessest 
Non radii solis neque lucida tela det 


Discutiant, sed naturae species ratioque— 


is the burden of the refrain he loves to repeat But in order to 
establish knowledge, it is first necessary to make inquiry into the 
i Stickney, De Natura Deorum, p. 23. 
2Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 298. 
Ἵ, 146-8; II. 59-61; III. 91-3; VI. 39-41. 





substance or 


ῳ {ΕΚ 1] 
CONTROVERSIAL ELEMEN! IN I 


H ᾿ ) ) >) ol Lb No ‘OM 1¢ ATi , \ ime , 114 Π ῖ 
Ι F W it Li Cal Ce ἶ ( ) 
| rimal } Yl } | ie | | 


the original 
ol ywical Ss) sten 


, is has been 
of all framers of ont 


substances 


bales ‘nos have come 
from which all existing thing: ha | 
() > ΐ 1e 
. en reached »\ 
9 "AS ilts have be ‘ 
ἃ oreat variety oO! rest ; : he 
. sence And a ore at c 2 ; us disc ards ΐ 1c 
oo f primitive philosophers. [Lucreti 
[9] p ‘ 


investigations Democr 


-dially fol- 
hers except ‘tus. and cordial: 
» researChcls ©&- 
these resear¢ 
ard, adopts 
| Democritus jointly, and 
void —@ropa καὶ κενὸν 


indi Ἢ | —— ἢ 
findings of all | the atomistic theory, whic 
ing EF urus 1n this Τὸ leclares that 
lowing Kpicul GeCl« 
Leucippus and 


‘ibuted to | 
et are atoms and the 


the original substances 


« < ᾿ a C 
ς { 1eN) TO (ls to | ) (ον ἯΙ ( Ι rnstl 


. at 2 ) 
materies οἱ inane. 


f matter. He enuncl- 
prop ‘sitions relative 


to the constitution ΟἹ 
his 


ites the two great laws of nature : 
ates U ο 


, - ͵ l 
( Ι έ έ 147] ‘ I Al. 


In sua corpora rursum 


{ ‘ 7} Ui 7 (ὁ. 
if { ( ( ( ld 7) fu ἡ 7] 


Hi Yon Cis ἶ { f { Ot ἷ { LO) Ls εἰ *] {Π 61] ( Ὶ 
I) | h ha u ὶ εἰ ΠῚ * and sos 4 tS ΐ ] { 


| ii εἰ 1} 
1u Co { (> tro s 
in livisibilit . dl ! ( } ) ‘5 | ) ι 


tO Enter 


| 4 ) ) 1) Yl - 1re u { 4 ia 1} 7 ncilable Wit 
) [ΕΣ - ον cli 
hilos phers wi Os f ) ty | { { (>) 


with those ] lable with a man of his earnest- 


. . > Ἃ ( 1¢ 
} ᾿ς OWn ‘This appeals tO he {||}: \ ) 


ee it until these 
"ὁ ently feels thi ool 
τ ei . his constructive argument. 


false teachings have been 
ness. oa 

j 6 1th | 
: t proceed Ww | ᾿ 
- “ zed he Cannot } | oui _ ee on 
a : | not treat all Οἱ these notal le prec 
i | ᾿ | } ' Ἂν } ΕἸ 
pao Γ νὴ | | | 11 me mstances Nis considerateness 
naect Ϊ Si) 


unmitigated severity. 
amounts to praise ; 


ah, entes 
be ; IDINUUS INVENTLE 
(Auamquam mulla De le ({( li gh 


j » 
, ‘Or ΡΟΝ δα dede) -? 
1 ν adyvto tamquam cordis res} 


erla ratione magis quam 
multo certa ratione magis q 


‘tpode a Phoebi lauroque profatur, 


Sanctus Οἱ 
Pythia quae ἢ a 
Principiis tamen in rerum 7. cer e —_ = 
Et eraviler magni magno cecidere tol cast. 


| tic in denunciation ol thei theories. 


TS, ‘hales, Anaximenes, 
Ι] the early Lonic and Kleatic he ὃ | 
a Ari! 


philosop 
with 


PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 21 


Pherecydes, Xenophanes, Parmenides and the rest. who call any one 
The names of these thinkers are 
not mentioned by Lucretius, but he distinctly 
physical doctrines. 


or more substances original matter, 


condemns their 


Quapropter qui materiem rerum esse putarunt 
/gnem atque ex igni summam consistere posse, 
Lt qui principium gignundis aera rebus 
Constiluere, aut umorem quicumque putaruni 
Hingere res ipsum per se, terramve creare 
Omnia et in rerum naturas vertier omnis. 
Magno opere a vero longe derrasse videntur. 
Adde etiam quit conduplicant primordia rerum 
Aera iungentes igni terramque liquor, 

Lit qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur 


Lx igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri.' 


1. EMPEDOCLEs. 


The occasion of Lucretius’ attack upon Empedocles, if it can 


properly be denominated such, is the position which he occupies 


among those physicists who have named one or more substances 
primordial matter. 


as 
Were it not for this we may well conjecture that 
Lucretius would have paid an honest tribute of respect and obligation 
to this illustrious sage and passed on to other subjects of criticism. 
jut he regards Empedocles as the most dominant figure among those 
philosophers who make a combination of certain substances their 
original matter.” And in this he is unquestionably correct. Aris- 
totle bears witness to the fact that Empedocles first declared that 
there were four elements, to which Plato subsequently gave the des- 
ignation στοιχεῖα. ὃ 


᾿Εἰδόκει δὲ αὐτῷ τάδε’ Στοιχεῖα μὲν εἶναι τέτταρα, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, γῆν, ἀέρα’ 
φιλίαν τε τ συγκρίνεται, καὶ νεῖκος ᾧ διακρίνεται, Φησὶ δ᾽ οὕτω, 


Ζεὺς ἀργὴς, Ἥρη τε φερέσβιος, ἠδ᾽ ᾿Αἰδωνεὺς, 
Νῆστίς θ᾽, ἣ δακρύοις ἐπιπικροῖ ὄμμα βρότειον. 


ΕἾ 705-15. 
* Quorum Acragantinus cum primis Empedocles est. 1, 716. 
* Ritter et Preller, //ist. Phil. Graec.. 41, ἃ. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEM INTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


» “.. ΄ ‘4 δι ὦ 9 “- + ν δὲ 
Δία μὲν, τὸ πῦρ λέγων" Ἥρην δὲ, τὴν γῆν" AiSwvéa Se, τὸν ἀρρα’ Νῆστι ; 
‘ ’ 


τὸ ὕδωρ᾽' 


Empedocles would inevitably fall under 


Holding such principles | es 
: ι | ith is exce al. e is 
the censure of Lucretius. Yet his position is exceptiona 


th > onl yhiloso ἢ I wnonY ΐ 4)» ( | om \ ΟΠ) ἶ l po ΐ ( Ϊ S, \ 1 Ϊ 
- . c =~ l Ts \ ΐ ὶ 


, ᾿ iastic is the 
ion ἢ αὶ warm and enthusiastic Is t 
whose name laudation is coupled. But wa 


derful three-cornered Sicilian isle, 


Quae cum magna modis multis miranda pidelu 


Gentibus humanis regio visendaque Jertur, 
Rebus opima honis. mulfa munita vu um v1, 

Nil ftamen hoc habuisse wiro praeclarius In Se 
Nec sanctum magis et mirum carumque widetur. 


Carmina quin etiam divint pectoris eis 


och ᾿ rv t praeclara reperta, 
Vociferantu) ef ΘΑ ΟΊ) pi φρο Ια ἃ Te] 


» . 7 nn td fas} fy 4 “76 ({! Rie 
Ut vix humana videalur shirpe crea 


.. 5 7 5 Υ 
ignifi : ΤΥ ‘aise which Lucretius be- 
But more significant than any verbal prais« 


stows upon Empedocles is the internal evidence which his poem dis 


closes of his affectionate study ol the philosopher, and his copious 


ise of the style of utterance and philosophical conceptions ol kim- 


ing . general disagreement between their 
pedocles, notwithstanding the general disagre¢ 


‘as gre το to Empedocles in various 
doctrines. Lucretius was greatly indebted to Em] 


wavs He doubtless regarded the περὶ φύσεως 0! the latter as In some 
᾿ 6. his poetic model.? The genius of Empedocles was celebrated 
sense ' 


. oe ἘΝ nce character of Lucretius: 
by Aristotle, and may well have 1] fluenced the charact 


Ev δὲ τῷ περὶ ποιητῶν φησιν, ὅτι Kae ὋὉμηρικὸς ὁ ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλῆς, 
μεταφορικός τε ὧν, κὰι τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς περὶ 


In view of the fact that critics have 


composition. 

κὰι δεινὸς περὶ THY φράσιν γέγονε, 
᾽» ΄ ,’ Π 

ποιητικὴν ἐπιτεύγμασι χρώμενος. 


rerses j , ors whic ‘ar a distinct 
been able to designate verses In both authors which bear a 


| [omeric 7 


Empedocles upon Lucretius was even more subtle than the latter 


\Diog. Laer., VIII, 79. 
*1, 720-33. 

‘Munro, 11. p. 90. © 
‘ Diog. Laer., VIN, 57. 


> Sellar. Roman Poets of th 


favor, we may infer, perhaps, that the influence ol 


EMPEDOCLES. 


was himself aware. but the traces of a more direct influence are 
abundant. The first fundamental principle, which Lucretius estab- 
lishes at the outset of his argument, is that nothing can be created 
from nothing by divine agency ; and the second is like unto it, that 
nothing already in existence can ever be annihilated. But the very 
content and form of these propositions reflect the doctrine of 
Kmpedocles. 


Nullam rem e nilo gigni divinitus unquam, 
was evidently suggested by the lines of the older poem περὶ φύσεως : 


ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ μὴ ἐόντος ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι 

τό τ᾽ ἐὸν ἐξόλλυσθαι ἀνήνυστον καὶ ἄπρηκτον." 
What has the appearance of generation and decay in the view of Em- 
pedocles is in reality but combination and separation. And _ with 
this view Lucretius agrees perfectly, the arguments which he ad- 
dresses in defense of his theory being both interesting and pertinent.’ 
We are indebted to Aemilius Hallier * for an exhaustive presenta- 
tion of the evidences of Lucretius’ familiarity with Empedocles. 
This painstaking writer has collated a considerable body of passages 
from the two poets which amply justify the opinion that the De 
Rerum Natura owes much to the περὶ φύσεως, both in literary style and 
in philosophic material. There exists, for example, a similarity of 
grammatical and rhetorical forms in these productions which is 
worthy of remark. Both poets are also given to an almost excessive 
use of iteration, Lucretius in particular being prone to this habit. 
Again, both freely employ tmesis, another indication, perhaps, of 
the influence of the Homeric verse upon Empedocles who studied it. 
Then, too, there are palpable imitations of the elder poet in the 


phraseology of Lucretius. Compare the following lines ἃ 


αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ παλίνορσος ἐλεύσομαι és πόρον ὕμνων.’ 


Sed NUNC ul repetam coeplum pertexere UcHs. 5 


' Emped., 48, 49, Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 300. 

“1, 159-328. 

‘Lucreti Carmina ὁ Fragmentis E-mpedoclis Adumbrata, Jena, 1857. (A doctor’: 
dissertation). 

'Emped., 169, Uallier. p. 13. 

> Lucret., 1, 418 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. EMPEDOCLES. 


w ” ~ Ι ᾿ 8 . 
γίγνοντ᾽ ἄνθρωποί τε καὶ ἄλλων ἔθνεα θηρῶν. Denique res omnis eadem vis causaque volgo 


- . . a ᾿ 2 ’ oa . 2 : ) : . 5 . 
Et genus humanum, pari omnia saecla fel arum. Conficeret, nist materies aeterna tenerel, 


᾿ . ὁ . . . ; Int yr ce ne . ν , σὲ . . * j 
Again. there are instances Οἱ the employment οἱ identical similes er se nexu minus aut magis indupedita. 


y (‘oonate wi ne ἃ . . 
by both poets : ognate with this doctrine is the theory of the Constancy Ol 


P ᾿ sum of matter in the universe hy ais a aaa 
γῆς ἱδρῶτα θάλασσαν. iniverse, on which they are agreed: 


eXpressus salsus de corpore sudor.* οὐδέ τι τοῦ παυνὸν ENON πέλα. Ones ain elt 

τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐπανξήσειε τὸ πᾶν τί κε Kal πόθεν ἐλθόν ; 
πῆ δέ κε καὶ ἀπολοίατ᾽ ; ἐπεὶ τῶνδ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔρημον. 
ἀλλ᾽ αὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ταῦτα." 


Munro ὃ has pointed out that the lines— 


Nec tamen hanc possts oculorum subdere visu 
Nec tacere indu manus, via qua munita fider Nam neque adaugescit quicquam neque deperit inde. 
Proxima fert humanum in pectus templaque mentis— 
are translated from this passage of Empedocles : Nec rerum summam commutare ulla potest vs ; 


Δ εἴ )}} 218 quo possil ΠΣ ullum material 
οὐκ ἔστιν πελάσασθ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἐφικτὸν 


“ἡμετέροις ἢ χερσὶ λαβεῖν ἥπερ γε μεγίστη 
πειθοῦς ἀνθρώποισιν ἁμαξιτὸς εἰς φρένα πίπτει. ᾽ 


Lifugere eX OMNI, quicquam est extra, neque im omne 
Unde coorta queal nova vis inrumpere et omnem 


: : . Naturam rerum mutare et vertere motus.” 
But the marks of doctrinal agreement 1n the works of these poet- 


philosophers are even more significant than resemblances of compos- lhere is reason to suppose that the doctrine that the soul is blood 


“fy δε. ; . . or - to which Lucretius * refers, 1 rived fr : ce , ence 
ition. While Empedocles and Lucretius differ on many ol the ch Lucretius ὁ refers, is derived from Empedocles, who says - 
questions involved in their several discussions of the nature of things, αἷμα yap ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα." 

a » are ‘ a r ‘ > iY . τ . " ἡ > τῶ " “Ir ritt re ry. ᾿ ἃ . ὃ x 
there are not a few notable points ol coincidence in their writings. lhey are in accord also on the doctrine that all things came into ex- 


[hey are of one mind touching the eternity of matter: istence by the conjunction or combination of the eternal and infini- 


φύσις οὐδενός ἐστιν ἁπάντων ι tesimal semina. 


~ > ’ , td a 
θνητῶν, ovdé τις ὀνλομένου θανάτοιο τελευτή, ἀλλὰ μόνον μῖξις τε διάλλαξις τε μιγέντων 


φύσις δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀνομάζεται ἀνθρώποισιν." ὦ 
ς μ ρ . ἐστὶ." 


Quod st in eo spatio atque anteacta aelate fuere . .  .  €erta suo quia tempore semina rerum 
E, quibus haec rerum ‘consistit summa refecta, Cum confluxerunt, patefit quodcumque creatur.' 


Immortali sunt natura praedita certe, In their explanations of the phenomena of nature there are likewise 
Haut igitur possunt ad nilum quaeque revert, important resemblances in Empedocles and Lucretius. The eclipse 
of the sun affords this parallel : 

1 Emped., 115, Hallier. p. 13. 
2Zucret., Il, 995. 

3’Emped., 105. 

t7ucret., V, 497- 





\Lucret., 1, 234-40. 
*Emped. ΩΙ ὁο4. Hlallier, p. 10. 


‘Lucret., Ul, 296, 303 


> 11, 290. 


‘TTT, 43. 
6Lucret., εν 


‘Emped.. 317. Munro, I, p. £79. 


, 39. Hallier, p. 22. 


39, Hallier, p. 





ἐπεσκίασεν δέ οἱ αὐγὰς 
αθύπερθεν, ἐπεσκνίφωσε δε γαίης, 


ἱσταμένη κ 
εὖρος γλαυκώπιδος ἔπλετο μήνης.᾽ 


τόσσον ὅσον τ᾽ 


f i f forgry , j x 
Nam CHI ΠΩ Jide We 1.7. ΓὙἋα seclude re col 


Lumine PL a 1071} allum capul OOSTTUCTE εἰς 


Ohiciens caecum radius a orbem. 


ar fashion by 


The growth « plants and trees is explained ina 


CA I) 


"EpreSoxAfjs πρῶτα τὰ δένδρα 


περιαπλωθῆναι καὶ πρὶν ἡμέραν καὶ 
ς καὶ τοῦ θήλεος περιέχειν 
καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔμβρνα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ 


τῶν ἵῳων ἐκ γῆς avadivar φησι, πρὶν τὸν ἥλιον 


νύκτα διακριθῆναι" διὰ δὲ συμμετρίαν τῆς 


κράσεως τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενο λόγον" αὔξεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ 
> 


γῇ θερμοῦ διαιρόμενα, ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη, 
τῆς μήτρας μέρη. 
Principio genus herbarun ἜΧΩΣΙ 
Terra dedit circum 


Florida fulserunt 


WILOV CH 


4) 7)} 77 Δ 
ἡ 4 


Arborisque datumst 
Crescendl MAGNUM INMIsS 
17 pluma alqu pil 
Quad i pe WAT })} 

Sie nova lum tf /] 
Sustulit, 17 Le οι morta 
Multa moadts multi 


Lieht ΠῚ}. Lined by hot! submerved Wn 
clouds 
καὶῖτοι τινὲς λέγουσιν ws ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν ἐγγίνεται mip’ τοῦτο δ᾽ ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλῆς 


μέν φησιν εἶναι τὸ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενον τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτίνων. 


Ha eham fit uli de Causa moors Ut 


7] lerram ligui 0,11 δὶ 


quod nude ) 17 d j ry li ice CS2Z87 
elenim Cl » 02077) 70). 7 4 7716 ullo. 


. Ἂν» 
: . Joi 77, 
{ἢ Gee } } fi nda lds ollis. 


EMPEDOCLIES 


(Auli CaM volis de lumine multa necessest 


( "one tpi Ve. ul meriilo 7 uli ani 12 ἢ pl ofundant. 


Epicurus doubtless borrowed his notion of effluxes ἡ (ἀπόῤῥοιαι) from 
Kmpedocles to explain the phenomena of perception. σκόπει δὴ κατ᾽ 
᾿Εἰμπεδοκλέα γνοὺς ὅτι πάντων εἰσὶν ἀπορροαὶ ὅσσ᾽ ἐγένοντο: οὐ γὰρ ζῴων μόνον 
οὐδὲ φυτῶν, οὐδὲ γῆς καὶ θαλάττης, ἀλλὰ καὶ λίθων ἄπεισιν ἐνδελεχῶς πολλὰ 


ῥεύματα καὶ λίθων καὶ σιδήρου." ‘These emanations he termed εἴδωλα, and 


Lucretius has adopted the same method of accounting for sense per- 
tions, devoting a large proportion of Book IV ice) the considera- 
f what he denominates ssmu/acra.  Sellar* has called attention 
t that the principle of beauty and life in the universe 
verses of both writers under the symbol of the voddess 
of love Eempedo¢ les employing the for 1 Κύπρι Βασίλεια ; Lucretius, 
alma Venus, genetrtx. Zeller draws an panei parallel between 
the ΠΝ substances oft Empedocles (which are subject 
changes, and combine only through the entrance of 
one body into the intervals between the parts of another) 
Atoms and Void of the Democritean system.® Perhaps 
similar COMparlson between the Km pedo lean doctrine of Love 


1 


Hate an the 
would be equally justifiable. τὰ μὲν σωματικὰ στοιχεῖα ποιεῖ τέτταρα, πῦρ 
ὀχιγότητι, μεταβάλλοντα δὲ 


atomist1 ‘ory of the eternal conflict and conjunction 


καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν, ἀίδια μὲν ὄντα πλήθει Kal 
κατὰ τὴν σύγκρισιν καὶ διάκρισιν, τὰς δὲ κυρίως ἀρχάς, ὑφ᾽ ὧν κινεῖται ταῦτα, 


φιλίαν καὶ νεῖκος. δεῖ γὰρ διατελεῖν ἐναλλὰξ κινόυμενα τα στοιχεῖα, ποτὲ μὲν ὑπὸ 


τῆς φιλίας συγκρινόμενα, ποτὲ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ νείκους διακρινόμενα" = Compare 


this statement with the lines of Lucretius 


Ritter et Preller. 
[OS. 
‘Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 300. Cf. Hallier, p. 25. 

This whole theory is closely allied to that of the Atomists. The small, 
invisible particles take the place of the atoms, and pores the place of void. 
lhe Atomists see in bodies a mass of atoms separated by empty inter 
Empedocles sees in them a mass of particles which have certain openings 


Spaces , 
between them, δ..." Zeller. 7} Socrati ἢ), 0, hy. II. p. ἐς. Cf. Munro. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Nec sic interemit mors res ul materia 
Corpora confcial, sed coeltum dissupal oltis 


Inde alits aliud contungil.' 


[Is there not at least some external resemblance between these declar- 
ations of the method by which the forces of nature operate ἢ 

The comparisons thus far instituted by no means exhaust the pos- 
sibilities of the subject, but are sufficient to demonstrate the intimate 
acquaintance of Lucretius with Empedocles, and_ his indisputable 
obligation to the older poet. ‘The eulogy which he pronounces upon 
Empedocles is not merely the praise of an admirer ; 11 is an expres- 
sion of gratitude from a beneficiary. 

But despite his honorable acknowledgment of the greatness of km- 
pedocles, Lucretius Is bound in all sincerity to combat certain of his 
physicial doctrines and deductions as wholly inconsistent with a true 


philosophy of the universe. Perhaps it would be more just to sa\ 


that in his strictures upon Empedocles [Lucretius is aiming at the 


whole school of philosophers who name An qualitative substance or 
substances as primal matter, rather than at a single teacher. ‘These, 
in his judgment, which he presents with considerable fullness, have 
ill gone astray with regard to primordia. And the arguments ad- 
duced against one are also valid agains all. Yet it is possible in a 
few instances to distinguish the shafts which are especially directed 
toward Empedocles. 

Lucretius, in the first place, condemns the Agrigentine philosopher 
for denying void, while at the same time he admits motions to 
things. 

Primum quod motus exemptlo rebus inant 
Constituunt, et res mollis rarasque relinquont, 
Aera solem ignem terras animalia frugts, 
Nec famen admiscent tn eorum corpus inane.” 
The testimony of Aristotle is clear on this point : ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν τῶν μὴ 


φασκόντων εἶναι κενὸν οὐδὲν διώρισαν περὶ κούφον καὶ βαρέος οἷον ᾿Αναξαγόρας 


καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς." But Kmpedocles ts himself equally plain : 





‘Il, ro0o2-4. Cf. Il, 560--δο. 


71, 742-45. 
22)» Caelo. WW, 


EMPEDOCLES. 


οὐδέ τι TOU παντὸς Kevedv πέλει οὐδὲ Trepic ody.’ 


This position Lucretius rightfully regards as incongruous. Indeed, 
as already indicated, the Empedoclean doctrine of primitive sub- 
stances and their method of combination leads logically and almost 
inevitably to something very much akin to the atomistic hypothesis. 
For atoms minute particles of matter are substituted, and for void 
we have pores or interstices Combination is effected according to 
a certain elective affinity, like particles being attracted by like and 
dissimilar particles being mutually repellent. Notwithstanding the 
palpable resemblances thus exhibited, Empedocles rejects the funda- 
mental principles of the atomists, an inconsistency which Aristotle 
was quick to discover. 


σχεδὸν δὲ Kal ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλεῖ ἀναγκαῖον λέγειν, ὥσπερ καὶ Λεύκιππός φησιν. 
εἶναι γὰρ ἄττα στερεά, ἀδιαίρετα δέ, ἐι μὴ πάντη πόροι συνεχεῖς εἰσιν." 


Lucretius furthermore exposes the fallacy of assigning softness to 


primordia and still supposing them immortal. 


Huc accedit item, quoniam primordia rerum 
Mollia constituunt, quae nos nativa videmus 
Esse et mortali cum corpore funditus, ulqui 
Debeat ad nilum tam rerum summa revert 


De niloque renata vigescere copia rerum.” 
This disastrous conclusion Empedocles distinctly disavows : 


φύσις οὐδενός ἐστιν ἁπάντων 

θνητῶν, οὐδέ τις οὐλομένου θανάτοιο τελεντή. 

ἔκ τε γὰρ οὐδάμ᾽ ἐόντος ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι, 

καὶ τ᾽ ἐὸν ἐξαπολέσθαι ἀνήνυστον καὶ ἄπυστον. 

αἶψα δὲ θνήτ᾽ ἐφύοντο τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατ᾽ εἶναι." 

Lucretius next shows the inconsistency of maintaining that all 

things are made out of four elements and reduced to them again, in- 
asmuch as in this way the things are the primordia of the elements 


quite as truly as the elements are of the things. 


\Emped., 01. in Fairbanks’ /¥rst Philosophers of Greece, Pp. 168. 
2Aristotle. Gen. ef Corr., 1, 1, 325 ὁ, 5. in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11. 


178. Fairbanks, pp. 162, 164, 180. Munro, IT, p. 93. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Denique quatiuor ex rebus si cuncla creantur 
Afgue in eas rursum res omnia dissoluuntur, 
Out magis lla queunt rerum primo) dia dict 
Quam contra res illorum retroque pularie 
Alternis gignuntur enim mutantque colorem 


it totam inter se naturam lempore ah omni.' 


Lucretius also contends more pointedly against the Heracliteans, 
perhaps, than against Kmpedocles, though the latter must be par- 
tially intended,* that the supposed process from fire to air, water, 
earth. and thence in reverse order, involves the theory that the 
primordia must be distinct from these elements and unchangeable, 
otherwise all things would ultimately be annihilated. ὅ 

Lucretius and I'm pedocles took ypposite positions with reference 
to the value of the perceptions as media of knowledge. The former 


declared the senses to be infallible guides to truth. 


Non modo enim ratio ruat omnis, vila quoque ipsa 


Concidat extemplo, nist credere sensious austs.* 


The latter asserted that the senses are wholly unreliable, and en- 
joined men to acquire knowledge of the nature of things by 
reflection. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἄρθει πάσῃ παλάμῃ πῆ δῆλον ἕκαστον, 

μήτε τιν᾽ ὄψιν ἔχων πίστει πλέον ἢ κατ᾽ ακονὴν 

μήτ᾽ ἀκοὴν ἐρίδουπον ὑπὲρ τρανώματα γλώσσης 

μήτε τι τῶν ἄλλων, ὁπόσων πόρος ἐστὶ νοῆσαι, 


γυίων πίστιν ἔρυκε, νόει δ᾽ τ δήλον ἕκαστον. 


Lucretius maintains that the soul perishes with the body and em- 
ploys much labor and ingenuity to make good his argument.® But 
Empedocles taught the doctrine of ἢ future life and the transmigra- 


tion of spirl ts. 


LT, 763-08. 

2 Hallier, p. 20, insists that Lucretius refers in this passage to Heraclitus alone. 
but Munro, II, "». 05. Says Empedocles was also included. 

81 782-802. 

*TV, 507-5. 

5Emped., 19-23, in Fairbanks’ 4irst Philoso 

SILL, 417-820. 


EMPEDOCLI.FS. 


ἤδη yap ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη TE 
θάμνος τ᾽ οἰωνός τε καὶ εἰν ἅλι ἔλλοπος ἰχθύς." 

Lucretius agrees with Empedocles in the theory that Nature tried 
many experiments and constructed many malformations, which were 
doomed to destruction, before she hit upon perfection in the various 
species. 

πολλὰ piv ἀμφιπρόσωπα καὶ ἀμφίστερν᾽ ἐφύοντο, 
μεμιγμένα τῇ μὲν ἀπ᾿ ἀνδρῶν, 
τῇ δὲ γυναικοφνῆ, στεῖροις ἠσκημένα γυίοις." 


With this declaration of Empedocles may be compared a passage 
from Lucretius too lengthy for quotation in this place, but equally 
explicit on the same theory.* But Lucretius condemns centaurs and 
other beings of a two-fold nature as impossible, * though Empedocles 


does not hesitate to affirm his credence in them : 


βουγενῆ ἀνδρόπρωρα, τὰ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν ἐξανέτελλον 
ἀνδροφνῆ βούκρανα." 
Lucretius likewise dissents entirely from the doctrine that primary 
bodies worked teleologically, an idea which Empedocles embraces 
with enthusiasm, and the promulgation of which constitutes him ac- 


, 6 


cording to Zeller ‘‘ the earliest precursor of Darwin.’ 


ἡ πολλαὶ μὲν κόρσαι avavy eves ἐβλάστησαν, 
γυμνοὶ δ᾽ ἐπλάζοντο βραχίονες εὔνιδες pw, 
ὄμματα δ᾽ οἷ᾽ ἐπλανᾶτο πενητεύοντα μετώπων. 


But Love—’ Agpo8irn—fashioned these together into comely and ap- 
propriate unions. 


» . 4 . - 4 4 id 
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μεῖζον ἐμίσγετο δαίμονι δαίμων, 
ταῦτά τε συμπίπτεσκον ὅπη συνέκυρσεν ἕκαστα, 
ἄλλα τε πρὸς τοῖς πολλὰ διηνεκῆ ἐξεγένοντο. ἢ 





\Emped., 384, 35- Fairbanks. p. 206. Diog. Laer., VIII, 76. 
*E-mped., 257. 259. 200. Fairbanks, p. 190. 


$V, 837-54. 

41V, 878-924. Cf. Munro, II, pp. 325-9. 
*Emped., 258. 50. Fairbanks, p. 190. 

6 Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, p. 200. 


ii-mped., 244-46, 254 56. Fairbanks, pp. 188-90. Cf. Munro, IT, p. 326. 





32 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 
so Km pedocles eX presses himself, while Lucretius vehemently de- 


nounces the doctrine of final causes in a passage ' which 1s directed, 
as we shall see hereafter, primarily against the Stoics. Faculties and 
functions were not created for predestined ends, but finding himselt 


possessed of powers and apphances man uses them for his advantage, 


ΔῊ ideo quoniam nalumst in Cor pore ul ull 


Possemus, sed quod natumst id procreatl usSuUM,~ 


It was the habit of the Epicurean school to include Empedocles in 
the catalogue of philosophers tO be derided and condemned, AS 
Cicero and Plutarch testify,* but Lucretius commends the author 
as much as he combats him, and discloses in his lines an indebted- 


ness to Kem pedocles which he is not aversc from paving. 


ANANAGORAS. 


Nunc ef Ana vagorae δὲ} “uleMU) homoeomerian 
Quam Grai memorant nec nostra licere lingua 
Concedit nobis pairu sermonis egestas, 


Sed /amen ipsam rem facilest exponere ver bis." 


With these words Lucretius introduces a philosopher for whom he 
has a degree of personal esteem, and with whom the Epicurean 
school had some natural affiliation. The opinion which Epicurus 
held coneerning Anaxagoras was singularly high. 

Μάλιστα δ᾽ ἀπεδέχετο, φηοὶ Διοκλῆς, τῶν ἀρχαίων ᾿Αναξαγόραν, καίτοι ἔν τισιν 
ἀντειρηκὼς αὐτῳ." 

In addition to this evidence of his warm regard Epicurus, it 


has been conjectured, furnishes further proof in the freedom 


with which in his letter to Pythocles he employs the views of 


\NAXAGORAS. 


Anaxagoras in setting forth a variety of explanations for remarkable 
physical phenomena. =A comparison of the extant fragments of An- 
axagoras and the records of his opinions in other writings with cer- 


tain statements Οἱ Kpicurus in the document referred to has led to 


this conviction. Attention has been especially direc ted hy Usener! 


to the causes assigned for the rising and setting of the sun, moon 


and stars: the intertropical movement of the sun and moon: the 


successive phases of the moon ; the apparition of 
of the moon; the eclipses of the sun and moon 
ena of lightning, earthquakes and_hail.* 

Moreover there is a general sense in which Anaxagoras occupies a 
common ground with Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus. 
Qn the proposition of Parmenides that generation and destruction In 
the ordinary meaning of those terms are impossible Anaxagoras 1s 
in agreement with the Atomists and the Epicureans. With them 
also he proceeds upon the supposition that there are certain original 
and immutable substances, out of which were evolved all things by 
combination and separation im space. There is this fundamental 
difference, however, between Anaxagoras and the contemporaneous 
philosophers with whom he contended: The latter conceived prim- 
itive matter without the qualities of things in being. —mpedocles 
names four elements distinct in quality. Democritus designates 
atoms unlimited in form and multitude and alike in quality as 
primordial matter. Anaxagoras, on the other hand, regards original 
and elementary substances as possessing all the qualities and difter- 
ences of things derived, and conceives them infinite in number and 
kind, a theors which creates a radical divergence between himsel 
and the Atomists. 


There is another position which separates Anaxagoras from. thi 
systems named. They explain motion, which 1s the cause of al 
combination, separation and order in the universe, by forces ΠῚ 
herent in matter; KEmpedocles by the mythical contrivance of Lov 
and Hate. the Atomists by the force of gravity. But Anaxagoras 


asserts that motion must he attributed to the operation of immatert: 


96, ΙΟΙ. 105, 100. 





4 CONTROVERSIAI ELEMENTS IN LU 


nergy, and places \Viind-—vets—in opposition to matter as the origin 
of motion and order. 

In support of the statement that Anaxagoras, like Epicurus, regard- 
ed generation and destruction as im reat only combination 
(σύγκρισις) ancl separation (διάκρισις), we have he affirmation of the 
Whilosopher himsell 

τὸ δὲ γίνεσθαι Kal ἀπόλλυσθαι οὐκ ὀρθῶς νομίζουσιν οἱ “Ἑλληνες" οὐδὲν γὰρ 
χρῆμα γίνεται οὐδὲ ἀπόλλνται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ ἐόντων χρημάτων συμμίσγεταί τε καὶ 
διακρίνεται. καὶ οὕτως ἂν ὀρθῶς καλοῖεν τό τε γίνεσθαι συμμίσγεσθαι καὶ τὸ 


ἀπόλλυσθαι διακρίνεσθαι. | 


()n this passage Zeller makes the following comment ‘The 


treatise of Anaxagoras did not begin with these words ; but that Is, 


of course, no reason why thev should not form the starting-point ol 


his system. — It has alread: been shown hk fundamental this 
trine is to the kpicurean philosophy. ndeed Munro 
fragment of Anaxagoras **an aphorism Δ hich Epicurus 


wholly adopted.” Aristotle has preserved the following 


ἔοικε δὲ ᾿Αναξαγόρας ἄπειρα οὕτως οἰηθῆναι διὰ τὸ ὑπολαμβάνειν τὴν κοινὴν 
δόξαν τῶν φυσικῶν εἶναι ἀληθῆ, ὡς οὐ γινομένου οὐδενὸς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος" διὰ τοῦτο 
γὰρ οὕτω λέγουσιν, ἦν ὁμοῦ τὰ πάντα, καὶ τὸ γίνεσθαι τοιόνδε καθέστηκεν 
ἀλλοιοῦσθαι." 
In this connection we mas Ls 
ὡς καὶ ᾿Αναξαγόρας kal Εἰὐριπίδης᾽ 
θνήσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων 
διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο 
μορφὰς ἑτέρας ἀπέδειξεν. 


he lines | Lou retius ilready cited . 


Vee vec wnaferemil mors res ul Matlertal 
( arpora CONMCIaT, ( ludi atssSttpal ollis 


Inde ality alind conning, 


ANAXAGORAS. 


On the same grounds which enable him to declare against 
eration and destruction, Anaxagoras asserts his belief in 


unchangeableness of the sum of matter. 


τούτων δὲ οὕτω διακεκριμένων γινώσκειν χρὴ, ὅτι πάντα οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω 
οὐδὲ πλείω. οὐ γὰρ ἀνυστὸν πάντων πλείω εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἴσα ἀεί. 

Epicurus has expressed himself with equal clearness and to the 
same effect 

καὶ μὴν Kal τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ τοιοῦτον ἦν οἷον viv ἐστι, καὶ ἀεὶ τοιοῦτον ἔσται. οὐθὲν 
γάρ ἐστιν εἰς ὃ μεταβαλεῖ. παρὰ γὰρ τὸ πᾶν οὐθέν ἐστιν, ὃ ἂν εἰσελθὸν εἰς αὐτὸ 
τὴν μεταβολὴν ποιήσαι." 

Lucretius has embodied the same teaching in lines already cited in 
connection with our discussion of Empedocles. ’ 

That Lucretius had much sympathy with Anaxagoras will become 


further evident by an examination of a passage in the second book οἱ 


the De Rerum Natura, in which there is a remarkably close transla- 


tion of a fragment of the Chrysippus of Euripides, who was a disciple 
of Anaxagoras. A comparison of the corresponding passages in the 
two poets reveals the intimacy of Lucretius with the writings ol 
Euripides, and implies some warmth of regard on the part of th 


latter for the former. Furipides Says : 


Γαῖα μεγίστη καὶ Διὸς αἰθὴρ, 
ὁ μὲν ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν γενέτωρ, 
ἣ δ᾽ ὑγροβόλους σταγόνας νοτίους 
παραδεξαμένη τίκτει θνατούς, 
τίκτει δὲ βορὰν, φῦλά τε θηρῶν 
ὅθεν οὐκ ἀδίκως 
μήτηρ πάντων νενόμισται. 
χωρεῖ δ᾽ ὀπίσω τὰ μὲν ἐκ γαίας 
φύντ᾽ εἰς γαῖαν, τὰ δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αἰθερίου 
βλαστόντα γονῆς εἰς οὐράνιον 
πόλον ἦλθε πάλιν’ θνήσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν 
τῶν γιγνομένων, διακρινόμενον δ᾽ 
ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλου 
μορφὴν ἰδίαν ἀπέδειξε. ' 


" ) ] - 
-itter et Preller, 120. 


Munro. If. p. 





CONTROVERSIAS ELEMENTS 


passage in Lucretius Is as follows 


Denique caelestt sumus omnes SETH χη εἶν 
Omnibus tlle idem pater est, unde alma liquentis 
Umoris σας mater cum lerra re epit, 

Keta parit nitidas fruges arbustaque laela 

it genus humanum, par omnia sae la ferarum, 
Pabula cum praebel quibus omnes Co? pora pascunt 
Δ) dulcem ducunt vitam prolemque propagan, 
Ouapropler merito maternum nomen adepla est. 
(edit item retro, de terra quod fut ante, 

/n lerras, ef quod missumst eX aetheris 

Jd rursum caeli rellatum te mpla receplant 

Nec sic interemit mors res uf materia 

Corpora ¢ onpicial, sed coeltum dissupa 


1 


Inde alits ahiud conimngi. 


\lunro remarks that this ‘* passage 1s quite Ke picurean and con- 


ent with the general argument of Lucretius, though his fondness 


Euripides has made him express himself 1n the language οἱ 


εἰ 


\naxagoras. ἢ 
\nother instance in which Lucretius has adapted the text of An 


-agoras to his own purpose is apparently afforded in one portion Οἱ 


is description of the manner In which the world was constructed. 


fhe declaration of Anaxagoras on . subject under consideration 


τὸ μὲν πυκνὸν καὶ διερὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν καὶ τὸ ζοφερὸν ἐνθάδε συεχώρησεν ἔνθα 
κι ε a 4 ‘ ᾽ ᾿ ‘ ‘ 4 " Ἢ ‘ Ι ᾿ Ἢ 4 , , 
νῦν [ἣ γῆ TO δὲ ἀραιὸν Kal TO θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν ἰκαὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν ἐξεχ ὠρη- 


σεν εἰς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ αἰθέρος. 


Ouippe οἰοόπ primum ΙΟΓΤΟῚ Col pora quaeque, 


Propterea quod erant gravia et perplexa, cowant 


ἱ 


/n medio alque imas Captrebant omnia Sedes 


‘Il. oo! TOOL. 
Munro ΕἸ. >. TOU 
( 


Fr. 8. in’ Fairbank’s 2 Tae a: , p. ; Ι. 


Munro Ll, 


en aes 


ANAXAGORAS. 


The immediate occasion of conflict between Lucretius and An- 
axagoras is the doctrine of the homoeomeria (ὁμοιομερεία) or the theory 
that the parts of a body are altogether similar to the whole, and 
that these homeogeneous parts are original and elementary substances, 
infinite in number and variety. The account of this doctrine which 
Lucretius gives is comparatively brief, but is fairin the main and 
sufficiently exact for his purpose: 

Principio, rerum quom dicit homoeomerian, 
Ossa videlicet ὁ pauxtlhs atque minus 
Osstbus hic et de pauxillis atque minutes 
Viscertbus viscus gignt sanguenque creart 
Sanguinis inter se multrs coeuntibu: gults 

ex aurique putat micis con wslere posse 
Aurum οἱ de terris terram concrescere parvis, 
Tenibus ex ignis, umorem umoribus esse 


) 


Υ̓͂ Mi " . 17 ν Δ ΦᾺ oof - i Jf yt é 
Cele ra consinilt ALU ralione pulaique. 


The argument ῃ Lucretius makes against this doctrine will 
be considered ter ne ὁ inati of the actual teaching of 
Anaxagoras | hi hiect. as revealed in the most reliable extant 
sources of information. 

The word homoeomeria (ὁμοιομερεία) does not appear in the frag- 
ments of Anaxagoras which have been preserved to us. Is there any 


4 


eround for supposing that he ever employ ed the term? On this ques- 


tion scholars are divided. Lucretius plainly asserts that Anaxagoras 
uses the word. Plutarch affirms the same:— ‘Oporopepelas αὐτὰς ἐκάλεσε 

Simplicius makes a like declaration: 

Ὅτι δὲ ᾿Αναξαγόρας ἑξ ἑνὸς μίγματος ἄπειρα τῷ πλήθει ὁμοιομερῆ ἀποκρίνεσθαί 
φησιν πάντων μὲν ἐν παντὶ ἐνόντων, ἑκάστου δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν χαρακτηριΐζο- 
μένου, δηλοῖ διὰ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Φυσικῶν λέγων ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς." 

Munro unhesitatingly places himself in the company of those who 
attribute this word to Anaxagoras, and maintains that there 1s 
sufficient evidence that even this exact form of the word originated 
with him and not with Lucretius, as had at first seemed probable, 


a 


1, 834-42. 
2 Munro, II p. 98. 


Phys. 337 155; 





CONTROVERSIAL ΕἸ EMENTS IN LUCRI rivus. 


} 


and as many critics still assert is the fact. Aristotle, who seems to 


: . . the nerne 1 of the expression, it 1s 
be chiefly responsible lor the perpetuatl on 1 τῆς CX] 


admitted, never uses this substantive form (épovopepeta ) but invariably 
the adjective (ὁμοιομερῆ). But Munro shows that he has himsell 


substantive to Epicurus, and expresses the conviction 


traced the , | 
ey well acquainted with 


and that 


that, since Epicurus and his school were 


Anaxagoras, they unquestionably der ved it trom them, 


᾿ Ε } πῶ ᾿ ris ς l 

Lucretius had it also from them and from Epicurus. 
Zeller, on the other hand, following Schleiermacher, Ritte! and 
denies that the term Was ever employed by Anaxagoras. He 


others, 


. . ᾿ , ~ 41 cyt 1 | ( Β hat the 
points in confirmation Ot this position not ιν to the tact th 


term does not appear in the extant fragments Οἱ Anaxagoras, but 


also that in places where it would be natural to expect it, the words 


σπέρματα and χρήματα are found, and that the word cannot be satisfact- 


᾿ ᾿ “1 t t . > f . ir Te 
orily explained except in connection Aristotle’s use of language, 


with whom he believes it originated: trary to \MIunros assert- 


ion, which he may not have SeCins dec 16 word hoamoeome)? 1a 
is first found in Luc retius. 


But whatever may have been the orig! f the words ὁμοιομερεία and 


᾿ Σ . 9 ‘ ᾿ ] rec ise 
ὁμοιομερές. there 15 Not a little doubt 
appar ntly not 


mantains that 


meaning attaching to them. 


always consistent in his usage. 


᾿ - ee) Pe . eleme of 
Anaxagoras claimed bodies of simila the elements ΟἹ 


δ. ὦ . hec 1 { 
things, a plain reversal of the atomist chich teaches that 


Sy ae Pee ΝΣ ᾿ς οὐ ιν 
the organic is composed of the elementary ane ἢ tt the elementary 


of the constituents of the organic. rdinar \ristotle employs the 


| } ] } - “2 
ὸ ὁ i ὰ ὁ r de hole whose parts ar 
words TO OPOLOPEPELA, TA OPOLOWEPT) tO dé WHOL | | 


another: in other words bodies which in all 


homogeneous with One 
their parts consist of one and the same substance, in which, there- 


fore, all parts are of like kind with one : Hher and with the whole. 


᾿Αναξαγόρας δὲ ὁ Κλαζομένιος τῇ μὲν ἡλικίᾳ πρότερος ὼὧν τούτου | Εμπεδοκλέ- 
ovs ), τοῖς δ᾽ ἔργοις ὕστερος, ἀπείρους εἶναί φησι τὰς ἀρχᾶς' σχεδὸν γὰρ ἅπαντα 


τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ, καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ, οὕτω γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαί φησι συγκρί- 


Ι Munro, I] Ρ. οὗ. 
2 Zeller, Pre-Socratte Philosophy, II, pp. 


°/0., Ῥ. 334. 


ANAXAGORAS. 39 


we καὶ διακρίσει μόνον, ἄλλως δ᾽ οὔτε γίγνεσθαι οὔτ᾽ ἀπόλλυσθαι, ἀλλὰ διαμένειν 
ἀΐδια." 

But in other instances Aristotle evidently makes the words 
τὸ Spovopepés and τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ refer to the homogeneous parts in 
distinction from the whole, as for example when he says:— 

᾿Αναξαγόρας δ᾽ ᾿Εμπεδοκλεῖ ἐναντίως λέγει περὶ τῶν στοιχείων. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πῦρ 
καὶ γῆν καὶ τὰ σύστοιχα τούτοις στοιχεῖά φησιν εἶναι τῶν σωμάτων καὶ συγκεῖσ- 
θαι πάντ᾽ ἐκ τούτων, ᾿Αναξαγόρας δὲ τοὐναντίον. τὰ γὰρ ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα (λέγω 
δ᾽ οἷον σάρκα καὶ ὀστοῦν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον) ἀέρα δὲ καὶ πῦρ μῖγμα τού- 
των καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σπερμάτων πάντων’ εἶναι γὰρ ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν ἐξ ἀοράτων ὁμοιο- 
ομερῶν πάντων ἠθροισμένον." 

According to Zeller,* however, Aristotle is not to be regarded as 
seriously inconsistent, but as presenting a graduated scale of things 
under this terminology. At the bottom of the series are the primary 
elements. Next in order, and composed of the foregoing, are the 
bedies of similar parts. Finally we have the organic formed of the 
bodies of homogeneous parts. These last Aristotle designates by 
the term ἀνομοιομερῆ and they include the face, the hands, etc., bodies of 
unlike parts. The ὁμοιομερῆ include bone, flesh, gold, silver, etc., 
and these in turn are made of the smallest substances of the same 
kind as the bodies which they form. ‘To represent these infinitesimal 
parts the plural of the substantive (épovopepetar) is employed by later 
writers such as Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius and others, as Zeller, 
Ueberweg and others declare, but also by Epicurus, as has been 
proven, and perhaps by Anaxagoras himself, as Munro contends, 
though the extant fragments of Anaxagoras have only the words 
σπέρματα and χρήματα to designate the original constituents of things. 

But in dealing with this subject it is contended that Anaxagoras 
did not mention elements, that term having been introduced into 
philosophy at a later period by Plato and Aristotle. In short the 
primitive substances of Anaxagoras were infinitesimal bodies all of 
whose parts were homogeneous with one another: In the qualities 
which determined their distinctive characters they were underived 


and imperishable. Now the number of things which are not alike 


‘nthe universe is unlimited. Hence there must be, according to 


| Aristotle, 2704. I, 3, 984 α 11. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 
, 302 @ 28. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 


bilosophy II, p. 335, 3- 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS 


Anaxagoras. an unlimited number of primord i1| bodies, not one ol 


whic h resembles another, and these are lfferentl ed in shape, color 
and taste.’ 


πρὶν δὲ ἀποκριθῆναι... - - πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐόντων οὐδὲ χροιὴ ἔνδηλος ἦν οὐδεμία. 
ἀπεκώλυε γὰρ ἣ σύμμιξις πάντων χρημάτων τοῦ τε διεροῦ καὶ τοῦ ξηροῦ καὶ 
τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ καὶ τοῦ λαμπροῦ καὶ τοῦ ζοφεροῦ καὶ γῆς πολλῆς 
ἐνεούσης καὶ σπερμάτων ἀπείρων πλήθους οὐδὲν ἐοικότων ἀλλήλοις. οὐδὲ γάρ 
τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἔοικε τὸ ἕτερον TH ἑτέρῳ. 

τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, χρὴ δοκεῖν ἐνεῖναι πολλά τε καὶ παντοῖα ἐν πᾶσι 
τοῖς συγκρινομένοις καὶ σπέρματα πάντων χρημάτων καὶ ἰδέας παντοίας ἔχοντα 


καὶ χροιὰς καὶ ἡδονάς." 


The objections which Lucretius brings against Anaxagoras are 
characteristic. There is, of course, the fundamental difference 
between them at he very beginning, that the picureans posit one 
primitive matter, from which 
finite variety of combinations, while 
limited number of primordial germs ΟἹ 


and quality. Out of this fundamental 
main the occasions of Lucretius’ 

The first count 1 . indictment against Anaxagoras is that he 
does not recognize \ al 1| TION Γ OEM process of COM- 


bination and separation. Ari tle bears witn on this point as 


follows:— 


ol μὲν οὖν δεικνύναι πειράμενοι ὅτι οὐκ Eotiv (τὸ κενόν) οὐχ ὃ βούλονται λέγ- 
ev οἱ ἄνθρωποι κενόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐξελέγχουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαρτάνοντες λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ ᾿Αν- 
αξαγόρας καὶ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐλέγχοντες, ἐπιδεικνύουσι γὰρ ὅτι ἔστι τι ὁ ἀήρ 
στρεβλοῦντες τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ δεικνύντες ὡς ἰσχυρὸς ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ ἐναπολαμβάνον- 
τες ἐν ταῖς κλεψύδραις.᾽ 


In the second place Anaxagoras holds τὸ the infinite divisibilitv of 


I 


bodies, a position In ( ΠῚ ith the atomistic theory. 


οὔτε yap τοῦ σμικροῦ γεἔστι τὸ ye ἐλάχιστον. GAA ἔλασσον ἀεί: τὸ γὰρ ἐὸν οὐκ 
ἔστι τὸ μή οὐκ εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀεὶ ἐστι μεῖζον. καὶ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ σμικ- 


pw πλῆθος, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ δὲ ἕκαστόν ἐστι καὶ μέγα καὶ σμικρόν." 


j- 


l Zeller Pre-Socrati hilosophy, Ul, pp. 336, 3 
| . Cf. Fairbanks, 


Ritter et Prell 














ANAXAGORAS. 


Quare in utraqgue mthi pariter ratione videtur 


Errare atque ili, supra quos diximus ante.’ 


Again, primordia of the character ascribed to them by Anaxagoras 
will be too feeble in the judgment of Lucretius to withstand the 
shocks of antagonistic influences, and will ultimately perish. 


Adde quod inbecilla nimis primordia fingit; 

Si primordia sunt, similt quae praedita constant 

Natura atque ipsae res sunt aequeque laborant 

Et pereunt neque ab exitio res ulla refrenat. 

Nam quid in oppressu valido durabit eorum, 

Ut mortem effugiat, leti sub dentibus ipsis ? 

Tenis an umor an aura? quid horum ? sanguen an 0556 
Nil, ut opinor, ubi ex aequo res funditus omnis 

Tam mortalis ertit quam quae manifesta videmus 


Ex oculis nostris aliqua vi victa perire. 


Such an obvious violation of the first principles of his philosophy 
cannot be tolerated by so earnest an Epicurean as Lucretius, who 


says.-— 


At neque reccidere ad nilum res posse neque aulem 


Crescere de nilo testor res ante probatas.” 


Moreover, the fact that Anaxagoras attributes secondary qualities 
to his primitive particles is enough in the estimation of Lucretius 
to condemn the whole system. In his second book he labors ingen- 
iously to demonstrate the impossibility that such qualities should 
belong to original matter. As these qualities are themselves de- 
structible. he believes that the atoms possessing them would necessar- 
ily be perishable also.° 

Again, Epicurus and _his school argued that the atoms, though 
indivisible, consist of parts inseparable and undistinguishable, which 
have existed in the atoms from eternity. These are called by Epi- 


curus ἐλάχιστοι and by Lucretius mznzma. 


I, 845-6. 
2 1, 847-58. 


730-865. 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


a > - μὴ a ‘ ; τ ‘ 
τό τε ἐλάχιστον τὸ ἐν τῇ αἰσθήσει δεῖ κατανοεῖν ὅτι οὔτε τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον τὸ 


τὰς μεταβάσεις ἔχον οὔτε πάντῃ πάντως ἀνόμοιον,ἀλλ 
‘ - , ᾿ > ‘ ‘ ~ , 
μεταβατῶν, διάληψιν δὲ μερῶν οὐκ ἔχον' ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν διὰ τὴν τῆς κοινότητος προσεμ- 
t Suev διαλήψεσθαί ὑτοῦ, TO μὲν ἐπιτάδε, τὸ δὲ ἐπέκεινα, τὸ ἵ ἡμῖ 
φέρειαν οἰηθῶμεν διαλήψεσθαί τι avTov, τὸ μέν ἐπιτάδε, τὸ δὲ ἐπέκεινα, τὸ ἴσον ἡμῖν 
δεῖ προσπίπτειν. ἑξῆς τε θεωροῦμεν ταῦτα ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου καταρχόμενοι καὶ οὐκ 
π᾿ ᾽ πὶ yh! ‘ a ᾿ » > > τ» ~ ‘ - κε - , , 
ἐν τῷ αὐτῴ, οὐδὲ μέρεσι μερὼν ἀπτόμεέν; ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τῇ ἰδιότητι TH ἑαυτῶν τὰ μεγέθη 
καταμετροῦντα, τὰ πλείω πλεῖον καὶ τὰ ἐλάττω ἔλαττον. ταύτῃ τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ νομιστέ- 
ον καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ ἀτόμῳ ἐλάχιστον κεχρῆσθαι. μικρότητι γὰρ ἐκεῖνο δῆλον ὡς διαφέρει 
- ‘ ‘ ’ > 4 8 κα δ , » Γ 
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν θεωρουμένου, ἀναλογίᾳ δὲ τῇ αὐτῃῇ κέχρηται. ἐπεί περ καὶ 
κατὰ τὴν [τῶν 1 ἐνταῦθα ἀναλογίαν κατηγορήσαμεν, 


ἔχον μέν τινα κοινότητα τῶν 


ὅτι μέγεθος ἔχει ἣ ἄτομος, 
μικρόν τι μόνον μακρὰν ἐκβάλλοντες." 


Lucretius has given considerable space to the discussion of these 


minima. but Anaxagoras repudiates the whole idea. τοὐλάχιστον μὴ 


ἔστιν εἶναι." 


In harmony with all his reasoning, which is based on practical 


considerations, 
Anaxagoras a couple of dilemmas. In the first place, 


guoniam cibus augel Corpus alitque, 


Scire licet nobis venas et sanguen et ossa 


Sine cihos omnis commixto corpore dicent 
Esse et habere in se nervorum corpora parva 
Ossaque οἱ omnino venas partisque cruo? 1S, 
Fiet uti cibus omnis, οἱ aridus οἱ liquor 1256, 
Ex alienigenis rebus constare putetur, 
Osstbus οἱ nervis sanieque οἱ sanguine mixto,' 

In the second place, 

quaecumque ὁ lerra corpora crescunl 

Sy sunt tn lerris, terram consiare necessest 
Ex alienigenis, quae terris exoriuntur. 
Transfer item, lotidem verbis utare licebit. 
In lignis si flamma latet fumusque cinisque, 


Ex alienigents consistant ligna necessest, 


| Diogenes Laertius, 
* ἢ 599-634. 
Fr. 16. Fairbanks, 


4 I, 859-60. 





Lucretius interposes as objections to the doctrine of 





ANAXAGORAS. 


Praeterea tellus quae corpora cumque alit, auget 


Ex alienigenis, quae lignis his oriuntur.' 


In other words, inasmuch as food supports the body, it must 
contain particles of the same kind as the body, which are not the 
same kind as itself, or the body must include particles of the same 
kind as the food, but not of the same kind as itself. And the 
same reasoning applies to the production of plants out of the earth 
and the development of flames out of wood. 

From these dilemmas Anaxagoras attempts to extricate himself by 


the hypothesis that all things are latent in each thing. 


Linguitur hic quaedam latitandi copia tenvis, 

Id quod Anaxagoras sibi sumit, ul omnibus omnis 
Res putet inmixtas rebus latitare, sed wlud 
Apparere unum cuius sint plurima mixta 


Et magis in promptu primaque in fronte locata.* 


This representation of the position of Anaxagoras is certainly a 
fair one. He conceives all the primitive bodies as originally mixed 
together so throughly and in such infinitesimal particles that not one 
of them was individually perceptible, and therefore the combination 
exhibited none of the qualities of things in being. 

ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν ἄπειρα Kal πλῆθος καὶ σμικρότητα’ καὶ γὰρ τὸ σμικρὸν 
ἄπειρον ἦν " καὶ πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐόντων οὐδὲν ἔνδηλον ἢν ὑπὸ σμικρότητος. πάντα 
γὰρ ἀήρ τε καὶ αἰθὴρ κατεῖχεν ἀμφότερα ἄπειρα ἐόντα " ταῦτα γὰρ μέγιστα ἔνεστιν 
ἐν τοῖσι σύμπασι καὶ πλήθεϊ καὶ μεγάθεϊ. “ 

But even things in being possessing all the qualities of the derived 
do not disclose the distinction between constituent bodies, but each 
contains parts of all; otherwise it would be impossible to explain the 
transition of all things into one another, and one could not come out 
of another, if it were not already a part of it. 

ὁ μὲν [’ Avataydpas | ὁτιοῦν τῶν μορίων εἶναι μῖγμα ὁμοίως τῷ παντὶ διὰ τὸ ὁρᾷν 


ὁτιοῦν ἐξ ὁτουοῦν γιγνόμενον " ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἔοικε καὶ ὁμοῦ ποτὲ πάντα χρήματα 
φάναι εἶναι, οἷον ἥδε ἣ σάρξ καὶ τὸδε τὸ ὀςτοῦν καὶ οὕτως ὁτιοῦν " καὶ πάντα ἄρα. 


| 1, 867-74. 
2 1, 875-79. 
Fr. 1 in Ritter et Preller, 120. 





44 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


, c a , > ‘ ᾿ 
καὶ ἅμα τοίνυν " ἀρχὴ γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἐν ἑκάστῳ ἐστὶ τῆς διακρίσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ 


πάντων κ. T.A.! 


If, therefore, ἃ thing seems to possess some single quality to the 
exclusion of others, it 1s simply because there 1s an excess of the 
substance indicated. The truth is that each thing has substances of 
every kind in it, but it derives its name from the predominating con- 
stituents, or as Munro puts it, ‘‘each individual thing is what it is by 
having in it the greatest number of ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα. ° 

Lucretius disposes of this theory quite summarily by answering 
that if it were true, corn, water, clods, wood etc., would when ana- 
lyzed reveal vestiges of blood, milk, fire etc. ; in other words when 
sufficiently divided they would exhibit traces of the substances fed to 
make them or produced from them. [It is obvious that this is not 
the case, and we must conclude, decides Lucretius, that various 
things have certain elements in common. 

His antagonist, he conjectures, may offer as an illustration of the 
opposite view the fact that tree-tops frequently catch fire by rubbing 
together under the action of the wind. But this simply demonstrates 
what he has already asserted, that there are man) seeds of things 
which trees and heat possess in common. [{ there were fully formed 
particles of fire in trees or anything else they might burst into flame 
at any moment. It is all a matter of the arrangement and order of 
the primordia whether they form one thing or another. 

Finally, Lucretius makes his favorite appeal to common sense, and 
closes his argument with a reducho ad absurdum which he evidently 


believes is unanswerable: 


Denique tam quaecumque in rebus cernis apertis 
Si fiert non posse putas, quin maleriat 

Corpora consimili natura praedita fingas, 

Hac ratione tibi pereunt primo dia rerum: 


Vet ult risu tremulo concussa cachinnent 


Δ lacrimis salsis umectent ora genasque.” 


| Aristotle, Phys. II], 4, 203 a 23. Zeller Pre-Socratic Phil. 
2 II, p. 10%. 


* i, g15-20. 

















ANAXAGORAS. 45 


In the same vein are the verses of Lucretius in the second book 
(973-90), where he combats the idea that the atoms must be similar 
in quality to the whole, by showing that upon this supposition the 
atoms of men must be able to laugh and cry and moralize on their 
own constituent particles, and concludes, 

Quod st delira haec furiosaque cernimus esse 

Li ridere potest non ex ridentibu’ factus 

Lit sapere et docths rationem reddere dictis 

Non ex seminibus sapientibus atque disertis, 

Qui minus esse queant ea quae sentire videmus 


Seminibus permixia carentibus undique sensu? 


It has been remarked that there 15 a striking similarity between 
Lucretius treatment of this portion of his argument against Anax- 
agoras, and the discussion on Empedocles in Book I, 503 20, both 
in language and matter. The reason for this is apparent. The par- 
ticles of Anaxagoras seem to Lucretius to be open to the same 
criticism as the four elements of Km pedocles. Both Possess those 
secondary qualities which are the concomitants of things derived.’ 


In order to avoid blind Chance and eternal Necessity, Anaxagoras 


ῳ “- 


> 


assumes Mind (νοῦς) as the world-forming energy, an immaterial e 


sence which is the cause of all motion and order in the universe. 
[his places him inevitably in opposition to the Epicurean doctrine of 
the fortuitous concourse of atoms, but as this speculation does not 
figure as a point of actual contention in the poem of Lucretius, we 


may properly leave it without treatment here. 


DEMOCRITUS. 


It is natural to expect that Lucretius will treat Democritus with 
ereat gentleness and consideration on account of the unquestioned 
indebtedness of the Epicurean school to this philosopher. Epicurus 
can scarcely be said to have had any scientific attainments of his own, 





! Munro, II, p. ἵ 





40 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


{ 


though he indulged ina superficial study of nature, and even ventured 
to publish the results of his investigations.’ It is noneethe less true, 
however, that he would have looked with contempt upon all scientific 
observation but for the practical advantages which such study alf- 
forded him in his attempt to destroy the baneful influences of super- 
stition on the human mind.’ For any other purpose the labor in- 
volved would have been esteemed superfluous by him. Science, 
therefore, Kpicurus held to be subsidiary to ethi Se Let the searcher 
after truth take whatever explanation of physical phenomena he will— 
onlvin the name of reason and for the sake of human comfort let him 
not attribute them to the interference ΟἹ divine hands—is the doctrine 
of Epicurus. 

Some general mechanical theory, however, is necessary to account 
for the world and its activities, in order tO banish this delusion of the 


human race. Now, the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus 
best serves Epicurus in this regard, and he adopts τ without making 
anv contribution to it except in a single instance, which will be men- 
tioned hereafter. 

The dependence ΟἹ Epic urus upon Democritus lid not es¢ ape the 
keen scrutiny of Cicero, who says: Quid est in physicis Epicurt non a 
Democrito? Nam etst quaedam com mutauit ut quod paullo ante de in- 
chinatione atomorum adixt, tamen pleraque du it eadem, atomos inane im- 
agines, infinitatem locorum innumerabilitatemque mundorum, eorum orlus 
interiius, omnia 7676 quibus nalurae ratio continelur, In physicis, guibus 
maxime gloriatur, primum totus est alienus (Lpicurus). Democritea 
dicit perpauca mutans, sed tta ut ea quae corrigere uolt, mihi quidem 
depruare uideatur . . . ta quae mulat ea corru mpit, quae sequitur 
sunt tota Democritt . . . quae eis mihi nullo probantur, tamen 


Democritum laudatum a ceteris ab hoc, qui eum unum secutus essel, 


\Thirtv-seven books entitled περὶ φύσεως, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, 


X, 


wie 
27. 
») a c πὶ © 7 , ε , » , 4 ε 4 td 2 
2 εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι nvw χλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μὴ ποτε 


πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμι- 
Sv, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας. Lo. Laer. X, 142, Usener, Apicurea, 


Ρ. 74. 


3 De Natura Deorum, I, 20, 72. 








DEMOCRITUS. 4°77 


} γ νὦ» 1 . : . . ° ᾿ 
nollem uiluperatum., . Democritus, uir magnus in primis, cuius 


fontibus Epicurus hortulos suos inrigauit.* 


In the same vein is the testimony of Plutarch:* Δημοκρίτου καλὰ καὶ 
πρέποντα διδασκάλια κομιζομένου παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ("Emxotpov), and Diogenes La- 
ertius records: φησὶ δ᾽ Ἕρμιππος γραμματοδιδάσκαλον αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι, 
ἔπειτα μέντοι περιτυχόντα τοῖς Δημόκρίτου βιβλίοις, ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν gat.’ 
Usener has pointed out many positive imitations of Democritus in 
the writings of Epicurus.° Notwithstanding these palpable evidences 
of the heavy indebtedness of Epicurus, he was very slow to acknowl- 
edge that he was under obligation to any teacher. He loved to 
herald himself as untaught.® He refrained from praising even those 
from whom he had undoubtedly derived instruction. Cicero, refer- 
ring to the custom of Socrates to eulogize other philosophers, says: 
Decet hoc nescio quo modo illum, nec Epicuro, qui id reprehendit, as- 


sentior.’ Diogenes Laertius also remarks: 


GAN οὐδὲ Λεύκιππόν τινα γεγενῆσθαί φησι φιλόσοφον,οὔτε αὐτὸς οὔτε “Eppapy - 
os, ὃν ἔνιοί φασι καὶ ᾿Απολλόδωρος ὁ ᾿Εἰπικούρειος διδάσκαλον Δημοκρίτου γεγεν- 
ῆσθαι .* 


This fully justifies Cicero’s accusation of ingratitude.” At the 


same time Epicurus somewhat reluctantly gave an occasional ac- 


knowledgment of his association with the Democritean school. 


καί τοι πολὺν χρόνον αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀνηγόρευε Δημοκρίτειον ὁ ᾿Εἰπίκουρος,ὡς ἄλ- 
λοι τε λέγουσι καὶ Λεοντεύς, εἷς τῶν ἐπ᾿ ἄκρον Emixovpou μαθητῶν, πρὸς Λυκό- 
φρονα γράφων τιμᾶσθαὶ τέ φησι τὸν Δμμόκριτον ὑπ᾽ ᾿Εἰπικούρου διὰ τὸ πρότε- 
ρον ἅψασθαι τῆς ὁρθῆς γνώσεως, καὶ τὸ σύνολον τὴν πραγματείαν Δημοκρίτει- 
ον προσαγορεύεσθαι διὰ τὸ περιπεσεῖν αὐτὸν πρότερον ταῖς ἀρχαῖς περὶ φύσεως.᾿" 


\De Finibus 1, 6, 17, 21. 

2De Natura Deorum I, 43, 120. 
3Usener, /picurea, p. 175. 
*X, 3. Usener, p. 360. 
SEpicurea, p. 402. 

6De Natura Deorum I, 26, 
‘Brutus, 85, 292. 

5... 17. 

9De Natura Deorum I, 33, 93- 


10 Plutarch in Usener, Af7curea, p. 175. 


72 
ΕΣ 





48 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


However. he treated Democritus himself, in at least one instance, 
with undisguised contempt. ' 

Lucretius shows a far more commendable spirit than Epicurus in 
relation to Democritus. He makes no attempt to conceal his un- 
qualified admiration for the philosopher to whom he owes so muc ἢ. 
It is characteristic of Lueretius that, while he discredits all gods, he 
sets up for worship the best substitute he can find—a hero, to whom 
he can conscientiously pay divine honor. His enthusiasm for great 
men not only leads him to venerate Epicurus as a god, but also to be 
exceedingly deferential to every commanding figure. To Epicurus he 
assigns the supremacy among men, but Empedocles, Ennius, Homer, 
Democritus and others are entitled to lofty positions in his pantheon. 
Democritus would seem to occupy the closest proximity to I;picurus, 
if there is any significance in the arrangement ΟἹ the names in the 
striking passage 1n whicl e strive: mitigate the terrors of death 
by celebrating the fact that the gran icters in human history 


have been compelled to undergo the same incholy experience: 


Denique Di MOCK UUIN POST 
i 
Admonutl memores molt 


¥ 7 ͵ a ts y J 
Sponle sua lelo cupul ὁ 
i i 


The pressure of Democritus upol Jucretius 1s amply manilest. 


(ne of the most conc ise presentatt doc trines of Demor ritus 


which we possess is that given by Diogenes Laertius. A comparison 
of the physical theories of Lucreti vith the statements of Democ- 
ritus On corresponding questions in the following passage, 


will reveal the close affiliation of the authors: 


᾿Αρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους, καὶ κενόν " τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα νενο- 
μίσθαι δοξάζεσθαι. ᾿Απείρους τε εἶναι κόσμους, καὶ γενητοὺς, καὶ φθαρτούς. Μηδὲν 
τε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίνεσθαι, μηδὲ εἰς τὸ μὴ OV φθείρεσθαι. Καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους δὲ ἀπ- 
εἰρους εἶναι κατὰ μέγεθος καὶ πλῆθος᾽ φέρεσϑαι δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δινουμένας. Καὶ οὕτω 
πάντα τὰ συγκρίματα γεννᾷν, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν. Εἶναι γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα ἐξ ἀτόμ.- 
wv τινῶν συστήματα' ἅπερ εἶναι ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτα διὰ τὴν στεῤῥότητα. Τόν 
τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων δινῶν καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι, καὶ 


‘ ‘ ε ; — 4 A ᾽ " > ε κι > ς a » , > , 4 
THY Ψυχὴν ὁμοίως" ἣν καὶ νοῦν ταῦτον εἰναι. Ορᾷν ὃ ἡμᾶς κατ εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις. 


Ι Diogenes Laertius X, 8. 
2 III, 1039-1041. 
3Diogenes Laertius IX, 44. 





ee ee eS 


DEMOCRITUS. 49 


It will be seen by this declaration of the Democritean principles 
that Lucretius has much in common with theirauthor. ‘They agree 
on the origin of the universe; the solidity, indivisibility and eternity 
of the atoms; the materiality of the soul; the media of sense percep- 
tions and other points of importance to be indicated hereafter. 

Special interest centres in the doctrine of emanations as held by 
Lucretius and Democritus.’ In the scheme of the latter this theory 
plays a more important part than in that of the former. According 
to Democritus not only vision, but all perception, both that of the 
senses and of thought itself, has its origin in these emanations, which 
penetrate into the body through the organs of sense, and thus spread- 
ing through all its parts, produce a representation of things. But 
to secure this result it is essential that the emanations shall be like 
the organs of the body in material constitution. We perceive each 
thing with that part of our nature whick is akin to it. Democritus 
differed from Lucretius and Empedocles on the method of sense per- 
ception in this particular, that he did not conceive of his emanations 


as coming into direct contact with the organs of the body. The 


space between the objects and Our bodies is filled with alr. The 


εἴδωλα, therefore, cannot themselves reach our senses, but the air 
which is moved by them does so, Clearness of perception naturall) 
decreases in proportion to the distance between the organs of sense 
and the image to be reproduced to sight, or the source from which 
sound emanates or thought proceeds. It is evident that with such a 
view of the mode of communicating impressions, there can be no ac- 
curacy of knowledge through perception. And as thought is de- 
y Democritus to have a similar origin, it 15 difficult 
how he can place any more reliance upon the phenomena of the 
mind than upon the sensations of the body, though he doubtless 
doctrine of emanations held by Lucretius, Emped- 
Democritus and Epicurus each contributed a part, the last 
named having had an especial influence upon the poet.* From the 
1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος τὴν αἴσθησιν Kal τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν 
προσιόντων " μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. 
Plac. WW, 8. Dox. 305 in Ritter et Preller, 155. 
2 Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy 
[ NX, 40--53, 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


surface of all bodies ‘nfinitesimal particles are streaming every 


moment. These particles take the figure of the objects from which 


they proceed, and thus form images OT 
yontaneously venerated, they are in- 


idola of the things they 


leave. These emanations are 5} 
streaming, they move with almost inconceivable rapidity, 


cessantly 
and should they cease at any time we should at once lose sight, 


smell and hearing. By reason of this perpetual evaporation of mat- 


ter a never-ending waste 1S xoing on, which explains the theory ol 


Lucretius that the world ‘s continually being fed with fresh matter 


from without. Moreoy er, on account of the porosity of matter, these 


srmulacra constantly pass through them in il] directions. Thus all 


bodies are to a greater OF less degree ‘nterpenetrated with other 


matter. Somewhat more obscurely, hut none the less truly, does 


Lucretius state the Empedoclean notion of pores differing from or 


resembling in shape the atoms which proceed by this streaming pro- 


cess from all bodies.’ To these emanations we are indebted for 
dreams, apparitions and many other strange phenomena, Our Con- 


ceptions of the deities, for example, have their origin in these images. 
But while Democritus distrusts the evidences of the senses, Lu- 
cretius, as we have already seen, maintains the absolute correctness 
of the presentations of these organs of pere eption. If misconc eptions 


are formed from the testimony) of the senses, it must be the mind 


which errs in the inferences made ι 
There 1s a striking similarity in the views expressed by Iucretius 
and Democritus on the question of the summum bonum, although 


there is an unimportant difference in the terms employed. 


Tédos δὲ εἶναι THY εὐθυμίαν, οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν οὖσαν τῇ ἡδονῇ; ὡς ἔνιοι παρακούσαν- 
τες ἐξεδέξαντο, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἣν γαληνῶς καὶ εὐσταθῶς ἣ ψυχὴ διάγει, ὑπὸ μηδενὸς 
ταραττομένη φόβου, ἢ δεισιδαιμονίας, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς πάθους. Kadet δ᾽ αὐτὴν καὶ εὐ- 


εἐστὼ, καὶ πολλοις ἄλλοῖϊῖς ὀνόμασι. “ 


{ 1. In pare this declaration with all that has been preserved as 


the doctrine of Epicurus upon the same subject, we shall find that 


the ciiference between the two 15 virtually nothing. In the recorded 
sayings ol Epicurus there is surely as refined a conception of the 


~ 


1 Masson, {/omeic Th 
27 ucrelius, ΙΝ. 379 SO. 
8 Diovenes Laertius, UX, 45. 








DEMOCRITUS. 


meaning and function of pleasure as has been anywhere expressed 
Democritus so far as our knowledge of his sentiments enables us to 
judge. ' 

Lucretius, who follows Epicurus faithfully here as elsewhere, ex- 


presses himself with equal dignity and forcefulness: 


O miseras hominum mentes, O pectora caeca ἢ 
Qualibus in tenebris vitae quantisque pericls 
Degitur hoc aevi quodcumquest! nonne videre 
Nil aliud stbi naturam latrare, nist ui qui 
Corpore seunctus dolor absit. mente fruatur 
lucundo sensu cura semota metugue ὁ 
Ergo corpoream ad naturam pauca videmus 
Esse opus omnino, quae demant cumque dolorem. 
Delicias quoque ult multas substernere possint 
Gratius interdum, neque natura ipsa reguirit, 
Si non aurea sunt tuvenum simulacra per aedes 
Lampadas igniferas manibus retinentia dexiris, 
Lumina nocturnis epulis ut suppeditentur, 
Nec domus argento fulget auroque renidet 
Nec citharae reboant laqueata aurataque fecta, 
Cum tamen inter se prostrati in gramine moll 
Proplter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae 
Non magnis optbus tucunde corpora curani, 
Praesertim cum tempestas adridet et anni 
Tempora conspergunt wiridantis floribus herbas 
Nec calidae οἰ decedunt corpore febres, 
Textilibus st in picturis ostroque rubentt 
Tacteris, quam stim plebeia veste cubandum est. 
Quapropler quoniam nul nostro in corpore gazae 
Propficiunt neque nobilitas nec gloria regni 
Quod super est, animo quoque nil prodesse putandum.* 
In this connection we may also note the similarity of attitude 


which Democritus and Lucretius take with reference to the passion 


of love. For sexual enjoyment they both have a certain contempt 


Diogenes Laertius, X, 125-132, 140. Usener. Apicurca, pp. 02 64, 
2 11, 14-39. 


779 
| “" 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRI rrus. 


which in Democritus amounts’ to positive hatred, because in the per- 
suit of such pleasure the man gives himself over to the degrading 
charm of the senses.' The intense earnestness ΟἹ Lucretius in deal- 
ing with this subject in the fourth book of his poem, seems almost like 
a commentary on the creed of Democritus in this regard. 

An illustration of the characteristic Epicurean method of account- 
ing for physical phenomena is afforded in the passage on earthquakes 
in the sixth book, where Lucretius, following his master, is in accord 


with Democritus in assigning these disturbances to a variety of 


causes. Epicurus, after specifying certain reasons for earthquakes, 


naively Says: καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλους δὲ πλείους τρόπους τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας τῆς γῆς 
γίνεσθαι. ° 

We are indebted to Seneca for what Munro calls a better illustra- 
tion of Lucretius in this connection than the extant w ritings of Epi- 


curus himself provide, since the larger works ol the latter, which 


I.ucretius had no means of consulting, were available to Seneca, who 


savs: leniamus nunc ad eos qui omnia sia quae rettult in Causa esse dir 
erunt aut ex his plura. Democritus ἢ lura putat. Att enim motum ali- 
quando spi itu fiert, aliquando aqua, aliquando ulrogue. On- 


J 


z Ἵ Ψ } See ] 7, . 
Nes isSlas posse οὐδ CAUSAS Δ picur us au pluses FUE UMUS | 4 ALLS Gul 


aliquid unum ΘΔ istis esse adfirmaverunt corripu, 

VI: 20.)° Attention has already been called to the fact that 
‘mitations of Democritus have been attmbuted l;picurus. It has 
also been maintained that Lucretius ade liberal use of the same 
authority. ‘The words ordo, positura, figurae, hich appear 
same succession and with the same techni al significance in I, 655 
and LI, [Ozti, have been traced to Democritus, by whom their Greek 
equivalents were employed according to the testimony of two author- 


ities. Aristotle says: 


Δημοκρίτῳ μὲν οὖν τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔοικεν οἰομένῳ εἶναι " τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκείμενον 
σῶμα τὴν ὕλην ἕν καὶ ταὐτόν, διαφέρειν δὲ ἢ ῥυσμῷ ὅ ἐστι σχῆμα, ἢ τροπῆ ὅ ἐστι 


θέσις, ἢ διαθιγῇ ὅ ἐστι τάξις. * 


Ι Zeller, Pre-Socrati 

2 Diogenes Laertius X, 105, 100. 

‘Munro, Il, p. 370. 

4Metaph.. VAIl, 2, p. 1042, ὁ. 11. Munro, 











. οι , Ωλ Pas eae." Ww: δ ἘΠ ἫΝ Z . , er e 3 
τὰ δὲ βιβλία αὐτοῦ καὶ Θρασύλος ἀναγέγραφε κατὰ τάξιν οὕτως ὡσπερεὶ καὶ τὰ 


Πλάτωνος. κατὰ τετραλογίαν, SaVS byiogenes Ϊ 


T 
~ ] ) | ) 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


heavier naturally fall with greater swiftness than the smaller and 
lighter. They stream down through the void in perpendicular lines, 
but the rapidity with which the heavy atoms descend enables them to 
overtake and impinge on the lighter and slower ones in consequence 
of which there are deflections and repulsions, which set up at length 
a rotary movement of matter from which was evolved the entire order 
of the universe.! That by means of collisions and interminglings the 
worlds and all they contain were produced, is the doctrine of Epi- 
curus no less than of Democritus; but there is a fundamental differ- 
ence in their respective methods of accounting for the beginnings of 
the process. And Lucretius has presented the arguments against the 
Democritean hypothesis with great force. 

The first reason adduced by the poet for rejecting the theory ol 
Democritus is that it is inadequate to the task of accounting for the 


existence of the universe, being founded upon a false physical prop- 


osition. For the statement that the heavier atoms will ultimatels 


strike the lighter in their perpendicular plunge through space is In 
1] 


validated by the fact that in ἃ vacuum all bodies move with the same 
rapidity. 

Quod st forte aliquis credit graviora poles 

Corpora, quo cittus rectum per inane feruntur 

Incidere ex supero levioribus aique 

Gignere quae poss int genitalis redde) 

Avius a vera longe ratione recedil. 

Nam per aquas quaecumque cadunt alque 

Haec pro ponderibus casus Celerare necessesl 
Prople ea guia Corpus aquae nN 1.1} aque 0115 
Aeris haut possunt aeque rem quamque morart, 
Sed citius cedunt gravioribus exsuperata, 
At contra nulli de nulla parte neque ullo 
Tempore inane potest vacuum ubsistere rel, 
Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere perg 


Omnia, quapropte? debent per inane quielum 


lof περὶ Δημόκριτον καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Εἰπίκουρος τὰς ἀτόμους πάσας ὁμοφνεῖς οὔσας 
βάρος ἔχειν φασί, tw δὲ εἰναί τινα βαρύτερα ἐξωθούμενα τὰ κουφότερα ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν 
ὑφιζανόντων ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω φέρεσθαι * καὶ οὕτω λέγουσιν οὗτοι δοκεῖν τὰ μὲν κοῦφα εἷ- 
ναι τὰ δὲ βαρέα. Simplicius in Ritter et Preller, 140 6. 





c 








DEMOCRITUS. 


Aeque ponderibus non aeqguis concita ferri. 
Haud igitur poterunt levioribus incidere umquam 
Ex supero graviora neque ictus gignere per 56 
Qui varient motus per quos natura geratl res. 

In arguing the equal rapidity of the atoms through space and the 
consequent impossibility of atom overtaking atom in the eternal de- 
scent. and thus rendering generation and combination inconceivable 
without some variation of the downward sweep or the interference of 
the divine will, which he distinctly disavows, Lucretius follows Ep- 
icurus, who says : 

καὶ μὴν καὶ ἰσοταχεῖς ἀναγκαῖον τὰς ἀτόμους εἶναι, ὅταν διὰ τοῦ κενοῦ εἰσφέρ- 
ὠνται μηθενὸς ἀντικόπτοντος. οὔτε γὰρ τὰ βαρέα θᾶττον οἰσθήσεται τῶν μικρῶν 
καὶ κούφων, ὅταν γε δὴ μηδὲν ἀπαντᾷ αὐτοῖς " οὔτε τὰ μικρὰ [βραδύτερον] τῶν μεγ- 
άλων, πάντα πόρον σύμμετρον ἔχοντα, ὅταν μηθὲν μηδὲ ἐκείνοις ἀντικόπτῃ .” 

Τὸ account for the collision of the atoms and the resultant com- 
bination of matter and the formation of the worlds and their contents, 


Lucretius and Epicurus adopt an ingenious expedient. 


Corpora cum deorsum rectum per inane feruntur 
Pond rious proprus, se wmcerto fempore ferme 
[ncerlisque locis spaho depellere paulum, 

Zantum quod momen mutalum dicere possis. 
Quod nisi declinare solerent, omnia deorsum, 
Imbris uli guttae, caderent per mane profundum, 
Nec foret offensus nalus nec plaga creata 


Principus: ta nil umquam natura creassel.” 


l_ucretius seems to have realized how dangerous a thing It was to 
introduce this physical contrivance into his system, for he attempts to 
guard his readers from the error of supposing that the atoms can 
travel downward in oblique lines. as would be the case if the swerve 
were more than the slightest conceivable variation from the perpen- 


dicular. 


2 Diogenes Laertius X, 61. This objection, it is asserted, was borrowed from 
Aristotle. Cf. Zeller, S/ozes, Epicureans und Sceptics, p. 445: 5- Masson Afomi 
Theory of Lucretius, p. 48. 

511, 217-24. 




















DEMOCRITUS, 


quar oblique ferantur, deinde eadem illa atomorum, in quo etiam Democ- 


ritus haeret, turbulenta concursto hunc mundi ornatum efficere non poterit 


But not only does the doctrine of the swerve enable Lucretius to 

‘plain the contact of the atoms in space, but it also serves a far more 
linportant purpose. It affords a rational basis for the doctrine of free 
will, which the Epicureans maintained against the Stoics, the early 
Atomists and other schools of thought. If the atoms had no power 
to decline, neither would men, constructed by a fortuitous concourse 
of these atoms, have the ability to move at will. The power of dec- 
lination in the atoms corresponds to free action in animals and men, 
and according to Lucretius the former 15 the cause of the latter. It 
has been conjectured that had not Lucretius required this theory to ex- 
plain the mystery of free will, he would have left his whirling atoms to 
take care of themselves, nor bothered his soul over the process Ot 
world formation. But the desire to avoid the doctrine of eternal ne- 
cessity or fate impelled mn to invent this method of accounting for 
the freedom ἫΝ the will Here Lucretius again followed his master, 
Epicurus, who-——cum cwiderel, δ᾽ atomi ferrentur in locum inferiorem 
suople pond re, nihil for im nostra polestale, quod essel earum molus Cer- 
lus ef necessarius. invent quo modo necessilaltem effugerel, quod wdelicel 
LD MOCK UU Jug Vale QW AIOMUM, Cum ponder e7 gravitale derecto deo - 
π΄ feratur, declinare ῥα... . . Epicurus declinahone 
ἴον vilart necessttatem fat puta, Haque fertius quidam Molus orilur eXx- 
fra pondus ef plagam, cum declinat atomus intervallo minimo—id appellat 
ἐλάχιστον . guam dechinationem sine causa frert st minus verbis, re cog- 
tur confitert..... Hane Epicurus rationem induxit ob eam rem, quod 
veritus est nest semper atomus gravitate ferretur naluralt ac necessaria, 
nihil tberum nobts esset, cum tta moveretur animus, ul atomorum motu cog- 
eeu. /d Democritus auctor atomorum accel pere maluitl. necessitate 


vmnia fiert. quam a corportbus individurs naturals motus avellere.* 


pic urus doubtless did adopt the hypothesis of the declination or 


swerve as (Acero declares in order to avoid the Democritean 


! Cicero. 1 
- Munro, Il. 
a icero, 7) 


‘Cicero, 2) 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS ΙΝ LU RETIUS. 


doctrine of eternal necessity. He has emphatically denounced this 
teaching in his famous letter to Menaeceus, and despite his purpose 


to remove the gods from all participation in human affairs, he says: 


κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ κατακολουθεῖν ἢ τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ δου- 


λεύειν .! 


This conviction Lucretius seems to share. 

The adoption of the swerve is from the standpoint of Cicero a 
thoroughly absurd, if not dishonest, pro eeding. He cannot admit 
that the conceit is rational.  Declinat, inguil, alomus. Primum cur? 
Aliam enim quandam wim motus habebant a Democrito inpulsionis, quam 
plagam ille appellat, a ie, Epicure, gravitas el ponders. Oude Cr gO 
nova causa in natura est qua dechnet atomus Auf num sortiuntur 
infer sé, quae declinel, quae non r Aut cur minimo declinent intervallo, 
matorenone Autcur declinent uno minimo,non declinent duobus aul tribus ? 
Oplare hoc quidem est, non disputare. Nam neque extrinsecus inpulsam 
atomum loco movert οἱ declinare dicis, neque in lo inant, per quod fera- 
fur alomus, quicquam Suisse Causae, cur ea non ὁ regione ferrelur, nec 
in ipsa atomo mutationis aliquid factum est, quam vb rem naturalem mo- 
fum Sul ponders non teneret. Ita cum attulissel nu’lim Causamn, quae is- 
tam declinationem efficeret, famen aliquid sibi dicere τ idelur, cum τὰ dical 
quod omnium mentes aspernentul ac respuanl, : 


Nec . .- . est causa cur Epicuru fatum extimescal et ab atomis 


petal praesidium easque de via deducat et uno tempore suscipial res duas 


snenodabiles, unam, ul sine causa Πα! aliquid—ex quo existel ul de nthilo 
guipplam | a . ., alferam. ul cum duo individua per tnanitatem 
ferantur, allerum ὁ regione movealur, alierum declined. 

Of course in this asumption of the doctrine of free will Lucretius 


antagonizes the Stoics, of whom Plutarch says in this relation: 


᾿Επικούρῳ μὲν yap οὐδ᾽ ἀκαρὲς ἐγκλῖναι τὴν ἄτομον συγχωροῦσιν ( οἱ Στωικοὶ ) 


ὡς ἀναίτιον ἐπεισάγοντι κίνησιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος .' 


But of the conflict with this school we are tO 5} eak at some length 


\Diogenes Laertius, 


*De Fate, 


‘De Anima 











DEMOCRITUS. 


later. It is of some significance, however, to observe at this point 
that Cicero approaches more closely to the school which denies free 
will than to the defenders of this doctrine, though he maintains a 
theory of fate or destiny which is in virtual accord with the highest 
conceptions of Providence, defending on the one hand the decrees of 
Deity and on the other the qualified liberty of man. He commends 
Democritus for adhering to the doctrine of necessity as being con- 
sistent with his physical hypothesis,’ and does not hesitate to declare 
that Epicurus is devoid of judgment. Referring to the expedient of 
the swerve, he says: Hoc dicere turpius est quam tlud, quod vult, non 
posse defendere. 

Carneades, he asserts, has produced a far better method of ac- 
counting for free will. Acutius Carneades, qui docebat posse Epicureos 
suam causam sine hac commenticia declinatione defendere. Nam cum 
docerent esse posse quendam animt motum voluntartum, id fuit defendi mel- 
tus quam iniroducere declinationem .  .  . Cum enim concessissent 
motum nullum esse sine causa, non concederent omnia quae frerent, ΠΟΤῚ 
causts antecedentthus,; voluntatis enim nostrae non esse Causas “eee ef 
anlecedentts.” 

But the argument which Lucretius makes in behalf of free will is 
worthy of respecttul attention despite the fact that Cicero, Plutarch 
and other writers ridiculed the Epicurean expedient. For there 1s no 
more serious piece of reasoning in the entire poem than that which 
Lucretius devotes to the theory of atomic declination. The philos- 
ophy of Epicurus has emancipated him from slavery to that supersti- 
tion, which attributes to the deities interference with the affairs of 
men. and from the fear of unseen powers which is consequent upon 
this delusion. But he has no sooner escaped from this terror than he 
is confronted by an equally forbidding phantom eternal necessity or 
fate. which annuls the free action of men and reduces them to mere 
machines of destiny. If the universe is the product of relentless law, 
each process following a fixed and unalterable order, cause upon 
cause, motion upon motion, in everlasting and unbroken sequence, 


then there can not possibly be any free will. How to elude, on the 


1/7), Kato. passim. 
27) Natura Deorum. a 25. 70. 
‘De Fato, τι, 23. 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS ΙΝ LUCRETIUS. 


one hand, the tyranny of the gods and, on the other, the thralldom of 


necessity, is the problem which was pre sented to Epicurus, and the 


swerve was to him a sufficient solution of the puzzle. Without. this 
device he cannot account, from his point of view. for the freedom of 


the human will. Lucretius fairly exposes the difficulty 


Denique si semper motus conec titur omnis 

Et vetere exoriwur semper novus ordine certo 

Nec declinando faciunt p imordia molus 
Principium quoddam quod fat foedera rumpat, 

Ex infinito ne causam Causa seqvalur, 

Libera per levras unde hae animanhbus ρα α 
Unde est haec, inquam, fatis avolsa potestas 

Per quam progredimur quo ducit quemque voluntas, 
Dechnamus ttem motus nec tempore certo 


Nee regione loci Cerla, ced ub ipsa lulil 


} 


But on what ground does Lucretius assert his doctrine of 
He makes his confident appeal [Ὁ CONSCIOUSNESS al εἰ experience. Free 
willis revealed first in initiating movement he impulse for action 
comes from the heart, and successively spreads through the various 
members of the body, and of this Lucretius pre a very forcible 


illustration. 


Nam dubio procul his rebus sua cuique voluntas 
Principium dat οἱ hince molus per memora rigantur, 
Nonne Dele S CLAW patefa Lis Le M por DUNCTO 

Carce) bus On pos ve famen prol “in pe re equorvum 
lam cupidam tam de subito quam mens avel tpsa 
Omnis enim totum per corpus materia 

( opla ( OnNguirt debe . Cconctiua pe 7, arlus 

Omnis ul studium ments conina sequalur ; 

{7 videas intlum molus a corde crear 

Lex animique voluntate td procedere primum, 


[nde dari Porro pe ry flolup corpus ef artus.” 














DEMOCRITUS. 


) 


But free will is also apparent in resisting compulsory movement, 


which differs from voluntary action in that it results from a kb 


low or 


impulse from without. 


Nec similest ut cum impulsi procedimus ictu 
Viribus alterius magnis magnoque coactu; 

Nam tum materiem totius corporis omnem 
Perspicuumst nobis invitis ire rapique, 

Donec eam refrenavit per memobra voluntas. 
lamne vides igitur, quamquam vis extera multos 
Pellat et invilos cogat pi ocedere saepe 

Prae ipite Sauer Up, famen esse in pectore 2OSITO 
Quidam quod contra pugnare obstareque possit P 
Cuius ad arbitrium quoque copia mate) 1αἴ 
Cogitur interdum flecti per membra per artus 


Lt provecta refrenatur retroque 1 esiait.* 


onclusion derived fr - considerations is that there 
. - 4 > ‘ ’ 

or gravity, κατὰ στάθμην, 

" i n - ] ‘ , +] ~ 

or external uence, κατὰ πληγήν, tne 


"0 Ὶ ae ay Eee 
dv been described. 


2 seminious quoque idem fateare necessesi 
i i - 
iam praeler plagas οἱ pondera Causam 
i ͵ ‘ ͵ 


DUS, “606 NACC C f noolws 11 1676 polesias 


ilo quoniam feri nil posse τι Jemus. 
(1112}} 2 ) ohibe LZ ne plagis OMG fianl 
γα quasi Vl; Se ine mens ipsa necessum 
“num habeat cunctts in rebus agendis 
vicla quasi hoc cogatur ferre patique 
if exiguum clinamen principiorum 
PECTIN loci certla nec Le m po) δ Certo: ᾿ 
ulation of this argument one finds that, 


: ] : ᾿ τ ἡ ἈΦ’ 4 ὦ. ἃ ᾿ νὰ 
malnt)y because τί 1s Impossible to account for the 


ἡ 


erations of the intellect on ἃ purely materialistic hvpothesis, and 


while Lucretius 1 specifying three causes of movement confuses 





a? 
02 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS 


thought, having first asserted that movement by collision results trom 
the swerve and afterward having placed the swerve before us as a 
separate cause of movement, yet the reasoning, from his standpoint, 
is close and strong. It amounts to this: We are conscious of the 
power of the will to originate action, which vinning at the center, 
extends under our personal direction through the whole physical 
frame. We are also conscious of the difference between voluntary 
action and necessary movement. When a body is moved by an ex- 
ternal impulse, it moves all at once. And we easily discriminate 
between moving of our own volition and being forced to move. In 
the latter case we experience a feeling of resistance in. our breast 


which impels us to withstand the energy applied to us. 


which compose body are subject to the same influences. ‘There is 


the impulse of gravity, the impulse of external force, but there must 
be also in all atoms, and especially in those finer ones which form 
the mind, the power to vary at will from the line of perpendicular 


] 
| 
i 


descent. ‘This 1S inevitable, lor if the soul has THIS power, as We 
know from experience it has, and the atoms which COMPpOse soul 
have it not, then the first principle of the atomistic philosophy 
ex nthilo nthil fit—is outraged. There is no way, iccording to Lu- 
cretius, to explain the existence of free will in men the highest re- 
sult of the atomistic evolution ‘xcept by admitting that it 15 an 
active principle in original matter. And there is no satisfactory 
method of accounting for this inherent quality of the atoms except 
to acknowledge the clinamen principiorum nec regione loci certa ne 
lempore certo. 

An element of respect for Democritus enters into this discussion 


on the part ΟἹ Lucretius, who WISHE Rs to make as distinct as possible 
his divergence from the older philos, p) ciliated lingers over the 
subject to show that his conclusions have not been inconsiderately 
taken, and also that he may combat the Stoics.’ 

Other points of controversial contact between the Epicurean sys- 
tem and Democritus, as disclosed by the poem of Lucretius, seem of 


secondary Importance, and yet are sulficl ntly « harac teristl to demand 


1Masson, Alomic Theory of Lucretius, pp. 127, 28. 


2Munro, II, p. 136. 








DEMOCRITUS. 


attention. Democritus, as we learn chiefly from Aristotle and 
Diogenes Laertius, held that the atoms are not only infinite in multi 
tude, but also in the number of their shapes. The grounds of this 
opinion were that δ there is no reason why One shape should belong 
to them more than to another;” that ‘‘ only on this supposition can 
it be explained that things that are so infinitely diverse are subject 
to so many changes and appear so differently to different people. Ὁ 
Aristotle says: 

Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Λεύκιππος ἐκ σωμάτων ἀδιαιρέτων τάλλα συγκεῖσθαί φασι, 


ταῦτα ὃ ἄπειρα καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι καὶ τὰς μορφάς, αὐτὰ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὰ διαφέρειν 


τούτοις ἐξ ὧν εἰσι καὶ θέσει καὶ τάξει τούτων." 
Diogenes Laertius declares that Democritus believed— 
καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους δὲ ἀπείρους εἶναι κατὰ μέγεθος Kal πλῆθος. ὅ 
Against this doctrine Epicurus is emphatic. He says: 


πρός τε τούτοις τὰ ἄτομα τῶν σωμάτων Kal μεστά, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ai συγκρίσεις 
γίνονται καὶ εἰς ἃ διαλύονται, ἀπερίπληπτά ἐστι ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν σχημάτων᾽ 
οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι τὰς τοσαύτας διαφορὰς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων περι- 
εἰλημμένων. καὶ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δὲ σχημάτισιν ἀπλῶς ἄπειροί εἷσιν αἱ ὅμοιαι, ταῖς 


δὲ διαφοραῖς οὐχ ἀπλῶς ἄπειροι ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀπερίπληπτοι. * 


Lucretius adheres to his master 1n at he sta and argues that 
the number of atoms its finite, but he doe . like Epicurus, admit 
that the number is incalculably great. » refrains from declaring 
whether it 1s small or large. But he adduces cogent reasons tor 
belief. In order to have an infinite number of shapes of atoms, 1t 
would be necessary to have atoms infinite mn magnitude. For sup- 
pose an atom has a limited numberof least parts; their permutations 


| 
will only give a limited number get shapes. lo secure an infinite 


number of shapes, (|; <> would be necessary to keep adding 
parts to infinity, and thus we should eventually have atoms of infinite 
size. which has been demonstrated to be an impossibility. Again, 
were the shapes of atoms infinite in number, there would be no limi 


tO the beauty of color and sound, or to that which 1s offensive But 


| Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, p. 22 
*1b., ὃς 224, 1. 


3 1X, 44. 
‘Diogenes Laertius, X, 42 





04 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


we know there is a limit to all this, as also t he heat and cold of 
the vear. summer's heat and winter's cold being two points between 


which various degrees of temperature proceed in their order.’ 


Lucretius mentions Democritus by name when he combats, as he 


feels compelled to do, this philosopher's theory οἱ the formation ΟἹ 
the soul: but, while he deprecates his doctrine. he alludes to its 


author in terms of compliment. 


Lilud in his rebus nequaquam sumere possis, 


Democritt quod sancta eri senlentia ponit. 


Corporis alque animt primordia singula privis 


Adposita allernis variare. ac nectere menitra.* 


To say that between every pair of atoms which compose the body 
there is a finer atom of the soul, is to Lucretius a wholly groundless 
statement. In his judgment the atoms of the body are many times 
as numerous as those of the soul, and therefore distributed at 


wider intervals than Democritus supposed 


§ : 7) ͵ 7 
Nam cum mullo sunt animae οὶ 
Quam quibus ὁ corpus nobis et τ 
Lum numero quogue concedunt ef 
Dissita sunt dumtanal; ut ho 
(uantula prima queant nobis mi 

i 

Corpora sensi feros PUOLUS 1312 CO} 
Intervalla tenere exordia pi 
Nam neque pulveris interdum sentimu 
Corpo) e nec membris incussam sider 
Nec nebulam MOCTU ΤΙ Gite QAranel 7CNUVIA 
Vobvia senti MUS, Pit mado οὐ) Ο11).11}. CUNT 
Nec supera capul etusdem cecidisse vi 

"oof Ψ- 7 . . easukiael 
Vestem nec plumas avium papposque 
Quit nimia levitate cadunt plerumque grai 
\’e . Pe ey ͵ ‘ = 
Nec repentis itum cuiusviscumque anima 
Sentimus nec priva pedum veshigia quaequ 


Corpore quae in nostro.culices et cetera ponunt. 


111, 478-521. 
21Π, 370-3. 











DEMOCRITUS. 


Usque adeo prius est in nobis multa ciendum, 
Quam primordia sentiscant CONCUSSA animal 
Semina corporibus nostris mmixta per artus, 
Et quam in his intervalls fuditantia possint 


Concursare coe et dissullare vicissim.* 


This point of difference between Epicurus and Democritus Munro 
declares we should never have known ὁπ for this passage im Lucre- 
fius, for in many particulars the two were in accord on the question 
of the constitution of the soul as well as other subjects connected 
with the atomistic philosophy. ° 

On the origin of verbal designations, the teaching of Epicurus and 
Lucretius seems to have been at variance with the doctrine of 
Democritus. In his letter to Herodotus Epicurus says: 

τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας φαντάσματα ἰδίως 
τὸν ἀέρα ἐκπέμπειν στελλόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστων τῶν παθῶν καὶ τῶν φαντασμάτων, ὡς 
ἄν ποτε καὶ ἣ παρὰ τοὺς τόπους τῶν ἐθνῶν διαφορὰ ἢ " ἵστε:ρον δὲ κοινῶς καθ᾽ ἕκ- 
αστα ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια τεθῆναι πρὸς τὸ τὰς δηλώσεις ἧττον ἀμφιβόλους γενέσθαι ἀλλή- 
λοις καὶ συντομωτέρως δηλουμένας k.T.A.° 

Terms of description and the language of common life were not 
directly imparted, but are the product of a necessary evolution. Na- 
ture and the multiplying needs of men prompted them to invent forms 


of speech. ‘This is the conviction of Lucretius, who says: 


At varios linguae sonitus natura subegu 

Mittere οἱ utilitas expressit nomina rerum, 

Non alia longe ratione atque tpsa videtur 
Protrahere ad gestum pueros infanha linguae, 
Cum facil ut digilo quae ὁ int praesentia monstrent. 


Sentit enim vim quisque suam quoad possi abut. 


All creatures feel their natural powers before these powers have 
been developed. The calf butts before his horns protrude; panthers 


and lions fight ere teeth and claws have appeared; and birds attempt 


flicht before their pinnions have been fully plumed. 





ONTROVERSAI 


41.7.0. aliquesul 


de AvNUINECS i 
͵ 





Cit VWHOUAIW 727 7) 2) 0 7} ρ 14 ΟἿ] 3) )) hf 


ah Kpicuro 


j 


7 
ἷ 1)}} QILLIN ALC Cl 


j fo Ae 
/ 7 (ὦ ἐ 


various things 


process; for 


«ἰ 


Δ σο st vara sensu 


Muta amen Cun 4171], "1076 VO , rT , 
‘ / ; Aid / 1{4 


ὃ, δέ 
Quanto mortals magis 


Dissimilis ali 7 


7 Zi }}1 { O} f lf { 


j 


UL lle 


he presentation ΟἹ 





Or ᾺΝ hic 


a choice 


} 


make lor himselt 


dealing with physi al fac 
flict 


heory of 


with Democritus, 


ν © es 
hal j ; 

A τω“ CONIMMILUINTE Lil ¢ 

δι WiC 6] 


᾽ ᾽ 
77 ᾿ 7) οἰ} re « 


( "Ii CONDCHWEC) 471. 


5 ᾿ 


C WIS USAC NUVGES ¢ 








Z7Cllut7 , 


DEMOCRITI 


7 ͵ 7. °F y 
Qislarve 1] naluraltlwus 766 5 1011 148 


quod iste sentit inesse concursiont alomorum vim quan- 


Ararat . 
SDI lide }}] Jlt 7 


i 


ἢ cum credo et imagines ipsas adivin- 


re. non onmarne omniumnm rerum. sed deorum; et prin- 


HMIVUET SIS, 7141 “us Givinilalem lribui, ef animantes m- 


J , . Se 
ὋΟ οι SOlCAHLE Vel NoCceTe.s Lip U7 US VETO 


77 ¢ Jue 


POV UDI ΠΝ 7 Vale /¢ 7 Ο 714 1a CPST CO} 7 USCULlA quaedam 


ram dividt negueant neque senuirt aut visu aullactu possint; 


, - , 7 Ἷ 
LOV UI CONCUISU JOTTUMIUO CL mundos tnnumerabiles Cf α71122171- 


('/ WLEOS 


“7140 4 Aumana fo aA NOW 150 aliquo 
inter mundos constitu: ef non vuli omnino 


͵ . γ ᾿ , 
quae famen ul cogilel wragines Aci ao 


defluere atque in animum introire 


ad oculosventunt. nam et videndi 


tt Ie 


Ἷ ines ia uf universum mun- 


QL thtadg 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


II. 


PHILOSOPHERS TOWARD WHOM LucrRETIUS IS HOSTILE. 


If the criticisms of Lucretius upon those philos yphers with whose 
theories he disagrees appear in some instances to be unduly severe, 
it must be remembered that in his master he h an example of mer- 
ciless and caustic censure. Che references of Epicurus to the ex- 
ponents of other schools of philosophy not infrequently descend to 


scurrility. Contemptuous reflections upon Nausiphanes, Plato, Ar- 


istotie.-Protagoras, Heraclitus and even Democritus have been at- 


tributed to him. 


καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα βίβλιοις ταῖς περὶ φύσεως τὰ πλείστα ταὐτά 
[τε] λέγειν καὶ ἀντιγράφειν ἐν αὐταῖς ἄλλοις τε καὶ Ναυσιφάνει [τὰ πλεῖστα], κα 
αὐτῇ λέξει φάσκειν οὕτως ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἴτωσαν " εἶχε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ὠδίνων τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ στό- 
ματος καύχησιν τὴν σοφιστικήν, καθά περ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνδραπόδων. καὶ 
αὐτὸν ᾿Εἰπίκουρον ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς περὶ Ναυσιφάνους λέγειν Ταῦτα ἤγαγεν av- 
τὸν εἰς ἔκστασιν τοιαύτην, ὥστε μοι λοιδορεῖσθαι καὶ ἀποκαλεῖν διδάσκαλον. πλεύ- 
μονά τε αὐτὸν ἐκάλει καὶ ἀγράμματον καὶ ἀπατεῶνα καὶ πόρνην " τούς τε περὶ Πλά- 
τωνα Διονυσοκόλακας καὶ αὐτὸν Πλάτωνα χρυσοῦν. καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλη ἄσωτον, (ὃν) 
καταφαγόντα τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν στρατεύεσθαι καὶ φαρμακοπωλεῖν: φορμοφόρον 
τε Πρωταγόραν καὶ γραφέα Δημοκρίτου καὶ ἐν κώμαις γράμματα διδάσκειν " Hpak- 
λειτόν τε κυκητήν " καὶ Δημόκριτον Ληρόκριτον᾽ καὶ ᾿Αντίδωρον Σιαννίδωρον " τούς 
τε Κυνικοὺς ἐχθροὺς τῆς ᾿Εἰλλάδος" καὶ τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς πολυφθόρους: Πύρρωνα 


δὲ ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἀπαίδεντον.' 


The most not @ is passage, ol rse, is the fact that 
even Democritus, to whom Epicurus ws nuch indebted, comes 


in for his share of obloquy. Cicero confirms ina large degree the 


reports preserved by Diogenes Laertius 


Nam Phaedro nthil elegantus, nil Ahumanius, stomachabatur 


senex, st quid asperius dineram, Cun tp rus ristolelem verxaru con 


»/] Ϊ . j .. 4 ν7 y Υ͵ y ᾿ 
LUIMCLIOSISSIIMNE, / Aadedoni Socranco lus, δ᾽.) eet i Me 7. 4.071. 
SO lal, J T7Z/. 7) all Cli, Timor γῇ. 


LD eh ae “is, FF ‘Pat 


o ͵ 


HERACLITUS. 6g 


sentiret. totts voluminibus concideri, in Democritum ipsum, quem secutus 
est, fueril ingratus, Nausiphanen, magistrum suum, a quo (non) nihil ai- 


dicerat. tam mal accepertt,' 


With such traditions before him and filled with an idolatrous ven- 
eration for his master, it is not strange that Lucretius exhibited some 
severity in the treatment of his controversial antagonists, albeit his 


language is mild compared with that of Epicurus. 


1. HERACLITUS. 


Of the persons referred to by Lucretius in his poem, Heraclitus 
alone is severely denounced by name. It is interesting to note that 
this philosopher was himself abusive in his manner toward his com- 
petitors and contemporaries. Such honored names as Hesiod, Pyth- 
agoras, Xenophanes and Homer fell under the ban of his reprobation. 

μεγαλόφρων δὲ γέγονε παρ᾽ ὁντιναοῦν, καὶ ὑπερόπτης" ὡς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ συγγράμμα- 
τος αὐτοῦ δῆλον, ἐν ᾧ φησι, Πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει. Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε 
καὶ Πυθαγόρην, αὐθίς τε Ἐξενοφάνεά τε καὶ “Exaratov. Eiva: γὰρ ἕν τὸ σοφρὸν ἐπ- 
ίστασθαι γνώμην, ἥτε οἱ ἐγκυβερνήσει πάντα διὰ πάντων. τόν Ὅμηρον ἔφασκεν 
ἄξιον ἐκ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ ῥαπίζεσθαι, καὶ ᾿Αρχίλοχον ὁμοίως." 

At the same time, as has been pointed out by scholars, Heraclitus 
was influenced by some of the teachers whom he antagonized, nota- 
bly by Xenophanes, with whose views of the heavenly bodies he un- 
doubtedly sympathized.” 

Che avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius toward Herac- 
litus. as exhibited in the passage now to be considered, is that he 15 
the leader of those philosophers who assert that fire is the original 
essence from which everything has been derived. The Epicurean 
physics is arrayed against all systems that ascribe primordial matter 
to one, two or any limited number of substances. This of itself 


would be sufficient to bring the condemnation of Lucretius down 


1De Nat. Deor.. ἢ 93. 
2 Diogenes Laertius, 1X, τ. 
$Ueberweg, Hist. Phil., I, 39- 





CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


upon the head of Heraclitus. But when the element chosen to 
stand for all matter 1s fire, the whole Stoic school seems to be in- 
volved, and the virulence of the Epicurean poet is largely explained, 
as will become more apparent later by the deathless hostility existing 
between the ‘‘porch” and the ‘‘ garden.” It isa truly Epicurean 
and natural temper which displays itself in the lines with which Lu- 


cretius begins the attack upon Heraclitus. 


Heraclitus init quorum dux proelia primus, 
Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inter inanis 
Quamde gravis inter Gras qui vera requrunt. 
Omnia enim stolidt magis admirantur amant/que, 
Inversis quae sub verbis latitanta cernunt, 
Veraque constituunt quae belle tangere possunt 


Auris et lepido quae sunt fucala sonore.' 


The taunt of obscurity contained in these lines originated as much 
from the reputation given Heraclitus by several writers of antiquity, 
as from any personal conviction which possessed Lucretius. The 


title ὁ σκοτεινός was early applied to Heraclitus. 


ἄνδρες δ᾽ ἀξιόλογοι γεγόνασιν ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν μὲν παλαιῶν Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ σκο- 


τεινός καλούμενος K.T.A, ” 


The earliest employment of this term in connection with Herach- 
tus is said to be found in Ps. Aristofle, De Mundo, 5, unless this 
work is later than the time of Hannibal, in which case the passage 
in Livy, xxiii, 39, would indicate an earlier origin. ἡ 

The testimony of Cicero is to the same effect as that already given. 
Heraclitus, cognomento qui σκοτεινός perhibetur, guia de natura nimis 
obscure memoravi.* 

Sed omnia vestri, Balbe, solent ad igneam vim referre Heraclitum, ul 
opinor, sequentes, quem ipsum non omnes interpretantur uno modo; qui 


guoniam quid diceret intelligt noluit, omiltamus, etc. ’ 


ΕἼ, 038-44. 

2 Strabon, XIV. 25 in Ritter et Preller, 
3’ Munro, IT, 84. 

4. De Fin., 11, 15. 

5 De Nat. Deor., Ul, 35. 


HERACLITUS. 


In a similar tenor is the witness of Diogenes Laertius. 


ἀνέθηκε δ᾽ αὐτὸ els τὸ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἱερόν, ws μέν τινες, ἐπιτηδεύσας ἀσαφέστε- 
ρον γράψαι, ὅπως οἱ δυνάμενοι προσίοιεν αὐτῷ καὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ δημώδους εὐκαταφρόν- 
nTov εἴη. τοῦτον δὲ καὶ ὁ Τίμων ὑπογράφει, λέγων. 


τοῖς δ᾽ ἔνι κοκκυστὴς ὀχλολοίδορος Ἡράκλειτος 


αἰνικτὴς ἀνόρουσε. 


In the letter from Darius, the son οἱ Hystaspes, to Heraclitus we 
have further evidence of the recondite character of the Ephesian phil- 
osopher's writings. 

τῶν δὲ πλείστων ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα" ὥστε kal τοὺς ἐπιπλεῖστον μετεσχηκότας συγ- 
γραμμάτων, διαπορεῖσθαι τῆς ὀρθῆς δοκούσης γεγράφθαι παρά σοι διηγήσεως. 


The saying that a Delian diver was required to fathom the depths 
of his composition has been attributed both to Socrates and to a 
certain Crates, who 1s reputed to be the first person who brought the 
work of Heraclitus into Central Greece. 

A more favorable construction has, however, been placed upon the 
literary performances of Heraclitus by some authors, who declare in 
certain instances that his obscurity is due to the brevity with which 


he expresses himself. Others think that the figurative style of his 


speech has much to do with the difficulty of understanding him, 


Others attribute this fault to a certain loose method of expression; 
while the opinion is held in still other quarters that Heraclitus had 
no intention of explaining the matters which he proposed for consid- 
eration. Muc accedit quod et omnis wllorum temporum orato philoso- 
phiae difficiles aditus pracbebat et ille proponere malebat quae sentiret quam 
exponere. 5 

On the other hand, it is asserted that he sometimes wrote with 
lucidity and brilliancy. 


λαμπρῶς τε ἐνίοτε ἐν τῷ συγγράμματι Kal σαφῶς ἐκβάλλει, ὥστε καὶ τὸν νωθέσ- 
θατον ῥᾳδίως γνῶναι καὶ δίαρμα ψυχῆς λαβεῖν: ἥ βραχύτης καὶ τὸ βάρος τῆς ἑρ- 


μηνείας ἀσύγκριτον." 


1 Diog. Laer., 1X, Ὁ. 
δ IX, 13. 

3 Ritter et Preller, 236 
* Diog. Laer., IX, 7. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


| le himself ( ompared his OTAa\ itv wit h the seriousness of OTac les 
when corre¢ tly interpreted. 

ὁ ἄναξ (οὗ τὸ μαντεῖόν ἐστι τὸ) ἐν Δελφοῖς οὔτε λέγει οὔτε κρύπτει; ἀλλὰ σημαίνει. 

σίβυλλα δὲ μαινομένῳ στόματι ἀγέλαστα καὶ ἀκαλλώπιστα καὶ ἀμύριστα φθεγ- 


γομένη χιλίων ἐτέων ἐξικνέεται τῇ φωνῇ διὰ τὸν θεὸν." 


here are a few persons who doubtless will agree with Prof. Fer- 


tier that Heraclitus is ‘‘the deepest probably, if also the darkest, of 


all the thinkers of antiquity. ° 

[he argument of Lucretius against Heraclitus betrays perhaps 
more clearly than any other controversial passage in his poem how 
difficult it is for him to argue from any standpoint except his own 
His reasoning is neither as cogent nor as fair in this instance as in 
50 ΠὶῸ other portions of his work. Accepting his own premises and 
proceeding from his own point of view, his argument 1s weighty 
enough: but there are evidences of either a wilful attempt to muis- 
represent the opinions of Heraclitus, or a disposition to allow the 
prejudices of his school against the Stoics, with whom he identifies 
Heraclitus, to obscure the real teaching of the Ephesian. On the 
supposition that the fire out of which the universe is evolved accord- 


ἢ 


ing to Heraclitus is the same as the fire which he pictures to his own 


’ 


consciousness, Lucretius presents his objections in this order: 

1. It is impossible to obtain such a varie {f things from fire. 

2. Condensation and rarefaction are in Icie to account for 
this variety, because they effect no qu 
3. Heraclitus denies void in things, without which condensation 


and rarefaction are inconceivable. 


4. When he declares that changes occur by the extinction of the 


fire he is at fault, for that would mean annihilation, and things 
would then need to be produced from nothing, which is contrary to 
the first pring iple of true philosophy. 

5. To assert that fire is the only real existence, all other things 
being only apparent is to deny the infallibilits of the senses, a funda- 


mental doctrine of Ipicureanism.* 


'Fr. 11. 12, in Fairbanks, /irst Philosophers o; 
2Masson, Alomic Theory of Lucretius, p. 


31, 645-764. 


=e 


HERACLITUS. 


The question suggested by an examination of the argument thus 
outlined is: To what extent does Lucretius represent the actual posi- 
tion of Heraclitus? What, for example, is the precise significance of 
the fire which the latter employs to indicate primitive matter? That 
Heraclitus has adopted fire as the primordial sole element from 
which all things have been derived, is certified in the most unequivo- 


cal manner 


ἐκ πυρὸς τὰ πάντα συνεστάναι, καὶ els τοῦτο ἀναλύεσθαι... mip εἶναι στοιχεῖ- 
ov, καὶ πυρὸς ἀμοιβὴν τὰ πάντα ἀραιώσει καὶ πυκνώσει τὰ γινόμενα. . . καὶ ἕνα εἷ- 
ναι κόσμον. γεννᾶσθαί τε αὐτὸν ἐκ πυρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐκπυροῦσθαι κατά τινας. .. 
πυκνούμενον γὰρ τὸ πῦρ ἐξυγραίνεσθαι, συνιστάμενόν τε γίνεσθαι ὕδωρ' πηγνύμενον 
δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ. εἰς γῆν τρέπεσθαι’ καὶ ταύτην ὁδὸν επὶ τὸ κάτω εἶναι. πάλιν τε αὐτὴν 
τὴν γῆν χεῖσθαι, ἐξ ἧς τὸ ὕδωρ γίνεσθαι" ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰ λοιπὰ σχεδὸν πάντα, ἐπὶ 
τῆν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀνάγων τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης. αὕτη δὲ ἐστιν ἣ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω ὁδός.' 
But was the fire of Heraclitus that of Lucretius? The poet would 
have us think so, and the words of Cicero already cited seem to 
claim as much. Lucretius apparently has before his mind constantly 
the visible flame, the process of combustion, and other phenomena 
which appeal to the senses. But no student of the fragments of Her 
aclitus can be persuaded that he was tied to any such narrow con- 
ceptions. Grote admits that the Lucretian interpretation 1s coun- 
tenanced by some striking passages from Heraclitus, but maintains 
that from the whole mass of his works, in as far as we possess them 
‘it appears that his main doctrine was not physical but metaphys- 
ical or ontological; that the want of general adequate terms induced 
him to clothe it in a multitude of symbolical illustrations, among 
which fire was only one, though the most prominent and significant. ἡ 
Phe latter part of this statement would seem to be scarcely accurate 
since Heraclitus evidently regarded fire, not simply as one of several 
symbols which could serve as illustrations of his doctrine, but as the 
one inclusive symbol, which in a special sense answered the require- 
ments of ever-changing nature. With this modification Zeller would 
be in substantial harmony with Grote’s view. “The former says in ef- 


fect. that with the doctrine that all things are in constant flux as 


Laertius, 1X. 7, 8, 9. Ἡράκλειτος φησὶν ἅπαντα γίνεσθαι ποτε πῦρ. 
. ITT, §, 20§¢, 1. Ritter et Preller. 29a. 


i 5}. 





74 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS ΙΝ LUCRETIUS. 


fundamental principle of his philosophy, fire seems to Heraclitus to 
be the living, moving element in nature. ‘The foundation of this 
theory, lies in the fact that fire seems to the philosopher to be the sub- 
stance which least of all has a permanent consistency or allows it in 
another; and he consequently understands by his fire not merely 
flame, but warmth in general, for which reason he also designates it 
as vapor or breath—pvx4. His reason for adopting fire as the material 
of the universe was ‘‘in order to express the absolute life of nature, 
and to make the restless alternation of phenomena comprehensible. 
Fire is not to him an unvarying substance out of which things de- 
rived were compounded, but which in this union remains qualitat- 
ively unchanged, like the elements of Empedocles or the primitive 
substances of Anaxagoras; ‘‘it is the essence which ceaselessly passes 
into all elements, the universal nourishing matter which, in its 
eternal circulation, permeates all parts of the cosmos, assumes in 
each a different constitution, produces individual existences, and 
again resolves itself; and by its absolute motion causes the restless 
beating of the pulse of nature. ' 

Heraclitus has left a statement which harmonizes with this phrase- 
ology, and serves to elucidate his meaning in the use of fire: 

πυρὸς ἀνταμείβεται πάντα kal πῦρ ἁπάντων, ὥσπερ χρυσοῦ χρήματα καὶ xpn- 
μάτων χυσός. " 

Brandis, commenting upon this, as quoted by Munro,* says that 
fire ‘‘is that for which all things are exchanged as wares for gold; 
but it changes itself as little into the things, as gold changes into 
these wares.” But Zeller* puts a somewhat different construction on 
the passage when he says: “" Herein he gives us to understand that 
the derived arises out of the primitive matter, not merely by com- 
bination and separation, but by transformation, by qualitative 
change; for in the barter of wares for gold, the substance does not 
remain, but only the worth of it.” 

Another pertinent inquiry in this connection is this: Does Lucre- 


tius correctly represent Heraclitusin attributing to him the hypothesis 


ἱ Zeller, 7 γε- Sou ratic Philosophy, II, 23. 
in Fairbanks, First Pail. Greece, p. 30. 


Socrati Philosophy, [I, 28. 


HERACLITUS. 


of condensation and rarefaction to account for the derivation of 
things? There is undoubtedly on the surface of much that is cred- 
ited to Heraclitus an indication of this theory. ‘The passage already 
quoted from Diogenes Laertius' certainly bears this construction. 


Other testimony is equally direct and definite. 


Ἡράκλειτος. . . ἀρχὴν τῶν ὅλων τὸ πῦρ. . τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμο- 
ποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. πρῶτων μὲν γὰρ τὸ παχυμερέστατον αὐτοῦ εἰς αὑτὸ συστελλό- 
μενον γῆν γίνεσθαι, ἔπειτα ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσει ὕδωρ ἀπο- 
τελεῖσθαι, ἀναθυμιώμενον δὲ ἀέρα γίνεσθαι." 

Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ἕν καὶ οὗτοι καὶ κινούμενον καὶ πεπερασμένον, ἀλλὰ 
πῦρ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς ποιοῦσι τὰ ὄντα πυκνώσει καὶ μανώσει καὶ 
διαλύουσι πάλιν εἰς πῦρ ὡς ταύτης μιᾶς οὐσης φύσεως τῆς ὑποκειμένης πυρὸς γὰρ 
ἀμοιβὴν εἶναί φησιν Ἡράκλειτος πάντα. 


But this interpretation of Heraclitus, which is made by later 


writers exclusively, is irreconcilable with the fundamental principle 


of his philosophy, which is that all things are in perpetual flux— 
there is nothing permanent. It is inevitable that when fire passes 
into moisture and thence into earth, condensation occurs, and when 
this process is reversed, rarefaction just as certainly takes place. But 
these are results, and not causes of a change of substance. The 
phraseology employed by Heraclitus is foreign to the notion of con- 
densation and rarefaction, and combination and separation of sub- 
stances. His terms are /ransmulation, kindling and extinguishing, life 
and death. Moreover, the idea of one immutable primitive sub- 
stance is utterly incongruous with the underlying principle of his 
philosophy. Though fire was in his view the essence from which all 
things were evolved, it was not so in the sense in which Thales or 
Anaximenes made water or rain the original element. The early 
physicists regarded their elements as abiding without change in the 
midst of the constant mutations of things derived. The fire of Her- 
aclitus, on the other hand, is that element which by its perpetual 
transmutation effects these changes. * 

But Lucretius contends that without void in matter, the existence 


Soe Ὁ, 

? Plutarch, Plac., 1, 3, 25, in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, 28, 2. 
ὁ Simplicius, Phys., 6r, 23, 33D in Ritter et Preller, 29¢. 

* Zeller, Pre-Soc. Phil., ΤΙ, 28-30. 





70 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, HERACLITUS. 


͵ 


of which Heraclitus denies, there could be no such processes as rare- fire of Heraclitus ‘is not like sunlight, connected with a particular 
faction and condensation: and hence, even if they were sufficient to and therefore changing phenomenon, but is the universal essence, 
account for the variety in nature produced from fire as the sole orig- which is contained in all things as their substance.”' The remarkable 
inal element, on his opponent's own theory, they are not to be con- approach which Heraclitus thus makes to the nebular hypothesis of 
sidered. modern science imparts to his doctrines an exceedingly vital interest. 
An examination of the Heraclitean doctrine of the senses, sug- 


ld quoque, st faciant admixium rebus inane, 
gested by the criticism of Lucretius, presents another difficulty of 


Densert poterunt ines rarique relingut. 
Interpretation. Had Lucretius some better knowledge of the 


Sed quia multa sit cernunt contraria nasct ' 
opinions Οἱ Heraclitus than we possess in order to enable him to 


Et fugitant in rebus inane } elinquere purum, 
; , make the assertions regarding his views tained } > fol ins 
Ardua dum metuunt, amitlunt vera viat, ᾿ ᾿ garding his vi contained in the following 
lines? is a problem propounded by Munro:° 


Nec rursum cernuntl exemplo rebus 7471] 
Du ere pol 7.9 19.606) 1 765. OMNIS ESSE πεσε ullam 


Omnia denseri flerique ex ynnibus unum 
Rem veram in numero rerum constare nisi ignem 


Corpus, nil ab se quod possit miflere raphm,; 
Quod facil hic tdem, perdelirum esse videtur, 


Aestifer tgnis utt lumen iacit alque vaporem, 


U/t videas non e slipatis partious esse the Nam contra sensus ab sensibus ipse repugnal 


Δ 7 labesaclal eos unde OMNIA Cre aila De ndent. 


Again, bearing in mind the terminology of Heraclitus referred to , 
cogniius est psi quem nominal ignem; 


Vere 


above. which apparently involves the ideas Ol death and extinction, } /)/ 1) WSU LOR 7] 
3 j lj f lJ}i NE VUS LONE COL ONCET ¢ 


Lucretius fancies he has hit upon an argument calculated utterly to ac by oe τὰ 
: ra non credit, quae nilo Clara minus Sunt. 


destroy his adversary, when he declares that the extinguishing of the 
here can be no doubt that Heraclitus did distrust the senses 


primordial fire to produce the changes of nature would signify that 
κακοὶ μάρτυρες ἀνθρώποισι ὀφθαλμοὶ Kal ὦτα, βαρβάρους ψυχὰς ἐχόντων." 


things were constantly being produced out of nothing, which is con- 
τήν τε οἴησιν, ἱερὰν νόσον ἔλεγε᾽ Kal τὴν ὅρασιν, ψεύδεσθαι. 


trary to the first pring iple of rational philosophy. 
According to his Opinion ‘+what our senses perceive Is merel\ thie 


Quod st forle aha credunt rathone polesse = τὲ : 
: fleeting phenomenon, not the essence. © Fire alone reveals origina 
lenis in coetu stingut mulareque corpus, | 7 
ae = matter. Other things which appeal to our senses actually conceal, 
Scilicet ex nulla facere ta si parle re harcenl, ; . ᾿ : 
a. Reo he instead of disclosing, the essential quality of matter. Separate 
Occidet ad nilum nimirum funditus ardor ἔπ: 
phenomena at best can only afford us a meagre and fractional view 
The testimony of 


Omnis ef ὁ nilo fient quaecumque creantur.° 
᾿ of that universal nature which isin constant flux. 
the senses is. therefore, never true, for the reason that it 1s always 


But when Heraclitus conceives of his fire as ‘xtinguished, it 1S cer- 
fragmentary and inexact. The unwisdom ofthe generality of mankind 


tainly not in the sense in which Lucretius fancies he does. for he 


plainly declares that his fire is never destroyed. The lightning flash 
| Zeller 77 


‘II, 88. 


yasses away, but the essential w armth is still in existence. the sun 
I ] 
Helios is not quenched The Ι 


Foes down and darkness follows, bu 
; , ὉὈ00-Ο 7 

4 Heracl., Fr., 4. in Fairbanks, 
» Diogenes Laertius, UX, 7. 


1 605 00. 6 Zeller. . cratic Philoso 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS 


is consequently seen in the fact that the mass depend for knowl- 
edge upon the evidence of the senses, an opinion with which Lucretius 
is wholly at variance, being fully persuaded in his own mind of 
the infallability of the sense perceptions. 


Quod mihi cum vanum tum de lirum esse videtur ; 
Ouo refel emus enim? guia nobis cerlius 151 
Sensibus esse potest, qui VETA Ai Ψ wsa nol MUS ?° 


After his treatment of Empedocles and his four elements, 1n 


which fire is included, Lucretius apparently swings back to Heracli- 
tus. though there is a difference among critics as to whether he 
actually refers to the Ephesian philosopher in the passage we are 
about to consider.?2. Munro thinks that Lucretius may be ‘‘ viewing 
Heraclitus through the glosses of the Stoics,” and may be ‘thinking 
among other theories of his ὁδὸς ave κάτω; but, as he affirms, no 
echolar would attribute to him the inter hange of the four elements.” 
Hallier. on the other hand, whose ibution to the literature on 
Iempedocles and Lucretius has already been -d. believes that this 
passage points directly to Heraclitus, and not to the Stoics ἃ all, 
except (perhaps he would admit) in a remote and adapted sense. 
After quoting the citation on the doctrines of Heraclitus from Drog- 
enes Laertius, IX, 9, which we have given above 73), and which 
he declares to be almost identical in language with Lucretius, 1, 


“82-88 he savs: Unde aliquantum discrepant quae de Stoicts refert Di 


/ 


‘ which runs as [ 


OLFeENES Laerhus, VIL, I 42, 
γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἣ οὐσία τραπῃ δι᾿ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρόν, εἶτα τὸ 
παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ; τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ 
πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ᾽ εἶτα κατὰ μῖξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ {wa καὶ τὰ 
ἄλλα γένη. 
[he opposition of Lucretius to the doctrine of transmutation, con- 
ained in the passage under discussion, 15 that primordia cannot thus 
change, but must be distinct and un hangeable, otherwise they 


vould be annihilated: for, according to his view, whenever a thing 


changes and deserts its own limitations, immediately the death of 


a 605 700. 
1, 782-502. 
ὃ Munro, II, 95. 


{Jucreti Carmina ὁ Fragment 


HERACLITUS. 


that which was ensues. Hence, if the elements, which the philoso- 
phers under consideration have des¢ ribed, are not formed out ol 
things themselves immutable, we should have things returning to 


nothing, and again defy the first principle of all true philosophy 


Quin potius fai natura praedita quaedam 

( or pol a onstituas. 19.7107} ve Sor 70 crearini. 
Posse eadem demptis paucis paucisque tribults 
Ordine mutalo et motu, facere aeris aura 


Sic alias alits rebus mutarver omnis τ 


exclaims Lucretius, who in this as ail other instances, argues from 
his own standpoint exclusively. 

It may serve to mitigate in our judgment the severity of Lucretius’ 
assault upon Heraclitus to remember that he is principally actuated 
by his hostility to the Stoics, who adopted very largel\ the physical 
theory of the origin of the universe taught by Heraclitus, as the Epi- 


cureans employed that of Leucippus and Democritus for their pur- 
pose. Munro feels that the use of plural subjects and verbs in the 
section under survev (1, 645—59), undoubtedly points to the Stok 


school. ἢ 


2. THE STOICS. 
‘The antagonism of Lucretius toward the Stoic school was one of 
the inevitable consequences of his absolute confidence in Epicurus. 
frusting him with unquestioning devotion, he could not avoid being 
Intolerant of that system of philosophy which, at the time he wrote, 
was the only successful rival of Epicureanism. Though Lucretius 


never mentions the Stoics or their chief teachers, Zeno, Chrvsippus 


and ( leanthes by name, there are repeated allusions to them in his 


verses, which betray an intensity of feeling not always manifest in 
other polemical passages. ['wice in Book I (641, 1068) he con- 


temptuously calls the Stoics solidi. a word containing more bitterness 


I, 793-502. 
2 Munro, 11. p. 53 


I 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS ΝΘ LU RETIUS. 


than he evinces in the case of any other school. lhis hostility of 
Lucretius to the philosophers of the ‘“porch,” one might almost 
call an inherited passion. Referenc » has already been made to the 
unfriendliness with which Epicurus spoke of competitors for philo- 
sophic honors.’ Diogenes [Laertius ¢ ndeavors to relute these reports 
of harshness on the part of Epicurus toward his rivals, insisting that 


thev are calumnies, and citing evidences of his kindness and affability. 


μεμήνασι δ᾽ οὗτοι. τῷ yap ἀνδρὶ μάρτυρες ἰκανοὶ τῆς ἀνυπερβλήτου πρὸς πάντας 
εὐγνωμοσύνης ἥ τε πατρὶς χαλκαῖς εἰκόσι τιμήσασα, οἵ τε φίλοι τοσοῦτοι τὸ πλῆ- 
θος ὡς μηδ᾽ ἂν πόλεσιν ὅλαις μετρεῖσθαι δύνασθαι, οἵ τε γνώριμοι πάντες ταῖς δογ- 
ματικαῖς αὐτου σειρῆσι προσκατασχεθέντες πλὴν Μητροδώρου τοῦ Στρατονικέως 
πρὸς Καρνεάδην ἀποχωρήσαντος, τάχα βαρυνθέντος ταῖς ἀνυπερβλὴτοις αὐτοῦ 
χρηστότησιν... ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία, καὶ ἣ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εὐ- 
ποιία, πρὸς τε τοὺς οἰκέτας ἡμερότης, .. καθόλου τε ἣ πρὸς πάντας αὐτοῦ φιλαν- 
θρωπία. τῆς μὲν γὰρ πρὸς θεοὺς ὁσιότητος καὶ πρὸς πατρίδα φιλίας ἄλεκτος 7 διά- 


θεσις. “ 


But an attitude of friendliness towart lisciples and admirers 1s 
| 


certainly not inconsistent with injustice atred toward philo- 


sophic opponents. Moreover, . defence which Diogenes Laertius 


} 


makes is not wholly disintereste ι disciple himself, he 


was at least a warm friend of the Ikpicureans The spirit of hostil- 
1t\ whi h Epi urus exhibited toward the « h LM prlons of othe philo- 
sophic schemes he transmitted to his followers, whose most Conspic- 
uous characteristic, as we have seen, Was their servile devotion to 
their master’s instruction. It was natural that a contention which 
had ensued for two hundred years should suffer no diminution with 
the lapse of time. In agreement with this probability we find Zeno, 
the Sidonian, a ox odkapx ns, who wrote in the time of Lucretius, In- 
dulging in positive scurrility when he mentions the older philoso- 
ophers as well as his contemporaries Cicero’ declares: Zeno quidem 
non eos solum, gui tum erant, Apollodorum, Silum, celeros, figebat mat- 


ad Socralen ipsuin, pareniem philosof hiae, Latino verbo ulens 


έ 


Laertius, X. 7, 3. 
2 7ῤ Δ. 4, 


; Zeller. Stor )ς DICH CANS ANd ΟΝ 


‘De Nat. Deor.. 1. 93- 


THE STOICS. Sol 


scurram Alticum fuisse dicebat Chrysippum nemquam nist Chrysippam.* 
vocebat. Such contumelious treatment was sure to be resented. 
The Stoics of earlier days did not hesitate to heap the foulest abuse 
upon Epicurus? in return for his strictures upon their philosophy ; 
and their successors were not slow to emulate them in this respect 
when they came to consider the later Epicureans. But the Stoic 
charges of gross immorality have never been proven against Epicurus 
and his immediate disciples. It is very natural that a company of 
persons who assert that pleasure is the highest σοοῦ should be open 
to the suspicion of sensuality. And this likelihood was increased in 
the case of Epicurus bv the admission of women, some of whom were 
of easy virtue, to the garden where his philosophy was taught. Such 
conduct. however, was not extraordinary in the state of Greek soci- 
ety at that time. And in all justice it must be confessed that the 
idolatrous veneration of his adherents for Epicurus is difficult of ex- 
planation on the supposition that he was a man of impure character. 
Moreover, his letters here and there olve evidence of a righteousness 
almost Puritanic in some particulars. That he subsisted on frugal 
fare, and refrained from excesses of every sort, 1S the testimony not 
only of his friends,* but also of those who ridiculed his abstemious- 
ness.* Great writers subsequent to Lucretius, such as Seneca, Ju- 


venal and Lucian. vindicate the name of Epicurus from the dishonor 


Ἵ 


LQOr. Ch 77 


Διότιμος ὃ ὁ Στωικὸς δυσμενῶς ἔχων πρὸς αὐτὸν πικρότατα αὐτὸν διαβέβληκεν, 
ἐπιστολὰς φέρων πεντήκοντα ἀσελγεῖς ὡς ᾿Εἰπικούρου" καὶ ὁ τὰ εἰς Χρύσιππον ἀν- 
αφερόμενα ἐπιστόλια ὡς ᾿Εἰπικούρου συντάξας. ἀλλα καὶ οἱ περὶ Ποσειδώνιον τὸν 
Στωικὸν καὶ Νικόλαος καὶ Σωτίων - - καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ ᾿Αλικαρνασσεύς. - - καὶ 
Λεοντίῳ συνεῖναι τῇ ἑταίρᾳ" - - καὶ ἄλλαις δὲ πολλαῖς ἑταίραις γράφειν, καὶ μάλ- 
irra Λεοντίῳ ἧς καὶ Μητρόδωρον ἐρασθῆναι. - - ᾿ΕἜπίκτητός τε κιναιδολόγον av- 
τὸν καλεῖ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα λοιδορεῖ. καὶ μὴν καὶ Τιμοκράτης - - φησὶ δὶς αὐτὸν τῆς 
ἡμέρας ἐμεῖν ἀπὸ τρυφῆς. - - συνεῖναί τε αὐτῷ τε καὶ Μητροδώρῳ ἑταίρας καὶ ἄλ- 
λας, Μαμμάριον καὶ ᾿Ηδεῖαν καὶ ρώτιον καὶ Nuxidiov.—-Diog. Lacr., X, 3-7. 
Usener, picurea, pp. 300-2. 

3AvoxAfs δὲ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῆς ἐπιδρομῆς φησιν - εὐτελέστατα καὶ λιτότατα διαιτώ- 
μενοι" κοτύλῃ γοῦν, φησίν, οἰδινίου ἠρκοῦντο᾽ τὸ δὲ πᾶν ὕδωρ ἢν αὐτοῖς ποτόν. 

πέμψον μοι τυροῦ φησὶ κυθριδίου, iv’ ὅταν βούλωμαι πολυτελεύσασθαι δύνωμαι. 
Jo., X. x, 11. Ch, 130 144, 140. 


James Baldwin Brown, Storcs and Saints, p. 17 (Mac Millan & Co. ). 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


which is attached to it through the perversion of his doctrines. ἢ 
At the same time it must be confessed that there is nothing in his 
principles or system of philosophy to restrain those who espouse his 
teaching from a life of self-indulgence. That a convivialist will 
adopt such a scheme of doctrines to justify lascivious and effeminate 
conduct, is not only a natural inference, but a fact of history. 
Usener, speaking of the opponents of the Epicureans, refers to the 


never-ending hostility of the Stoics in the following language: 


Omnium longe acerbissimi et gravissimt Stoict. Quorum sectae cum a 


principio Epicurt philosophia omnis repugnal ef, etiam magis contraria 
facta est, postguam Persaeus unam Stoicorum dow /rinam servando regno 
et civitalt utilem esse Antigono regt persuasil el a / regnt commoda philos- 
ophiam re τος. Prodit Clearithes adversarius ul Aristarchus Samus 
experlus est. acer vehemensque, Gui non solum atomos inf uonarel sed eli- 
am imaginem vividam evornando Virtulum ancitlantium miseralionem, 
odium I voluplahs dominantis commover et, lam magis magisque coeplum 
est odits irisque dimicari. 4 [εἰ infumandum Upicurum fuere gui episiulas 
inpudivas tamquam ab illo scriplas publicarent. Severissima plebiscila in 
Epicureos a Messentis Lyetis Phalannaeis facta multitudinis supershh- 
osae odto Stotcorum calumnus ΘΛ Πα. 

fhe Epicureans on their part were, of course, no less bitter in their 


criticisms upon the followers of Zeno Phil demus, a close CoOn- 


temporary of Lucretius. brings serious charges ΟἹ impiety against the 


StOIcs. From the Jo/umina Herculanensia Usener makes this 
extract: 
, τ ε » " ᾿ » ’ ‘ ‘ «“ , ᾿ 
πάντες οὖν οἱ ἀπὸ Ζί(ή)νωνος εἰ καὶ ἀπέλί(ευ᾽ πον τὸ δαιμόνιον, ὥσπιε)ρ οἵ μὲν 
οὐκ ἀπιίέγλειπον, (ot) δ᾽ ἐν τισὶν οὐκ ἀπέ(λει)πον, ἕνα (θε)ὸν A€you(ot)v εἶναι, γίν- 


εσθαι (δὲ) καὶ τὸ πᾶν σὺν τῆι ψυχῇ; πλανῶσιν δ᾽ (ὡς) πολλοὺς ἀπολιε)ίπονί(τες). 


Ψ 3 " . : ‘ ; - ᾽ »»2 - ᾽ , 7 
ὥστ᾽ (οὐ κα)τὰ ν(ὀ)μίο)ν θίεοὺυς ἐννο)εὶν ἀ(λλ᾽ ἀ)ναιρεῖν ἐπιδεικ(ν) ύσθωσαν τοῖς πολ- 


λοῖς, ἕνα μόνον ἅπαντα λέγοντες, οὐ πολλούς, οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἣ κοινὴ (φ)ήμη 


παραδέδωκεν, ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι 


λεγόντων." 


\Sellar, Roman Loets 0) 


ΟἿ. Cic. Fin., Tl, 25, 51. 


437, 3: 
2 Epicurea, Prefatio, 1 XXI, LXX1M, 


3 περὶ évoreBelas, in Epicurea, Pracfatio, LXXIH 











THE STOICS. 53 


Cicero refers to the master of the Epicurean school as Lfrcurum, 
guem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Storct.' 

Knowing the animosity of some of the belligerents in the contests 
of the Stoics and the Epicureans, we easily conjecture the manner in 
which those treated one another, of whom we have no accurate 
record. Formerly, we are told,* there were extant many volumes of 
the controversial writings of Chrysippus bearing upon Epicurus, but 
we have now only an imperfect, though valuable, index of the pro- 
ductions of the famous Stoic, those treating of Epicurean tenets be- 
ing as follows: 

περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ Kal τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἀποδείξεις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν τέλος, ἀ- 


ποδείξεις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀγαθόν." 


The hostility of Lucretius toward Stoicism, however, cannot be 
adequately accounted for on the mere ground of the traditional en- 
mity existing hetween the two schools. Not only do irreconcilable 
differences occur immediately the systems are brought to the solution 
of the same fundamental problems, but there are remarkable points 
of agreement between them, which alone would be sufficient to beget 
an ungenerous rivalry. [.picureans and Stoics alike were in quest οἱ 
the same desideratum—rest of soul (ἀταραξία). They both employed 
in this pursuit a philosophy thoroughly materialistic, and assigned to 
practical questions a supremacy over matters of pure speculation 
The perceptions of the senses were by both regarded as the only 
standard by which truth could be measured. They were both agreed 
that accurate knowledge is attainable, otherwise there could be no 
positive action. Even in the consideration of the swmmum bonum, 
where it would be natural to expect the widest breach, it has been 
shown that the grounds of contentment and spiritual repose in both 


were exceedingly similar.‘ It has been truthfully asserted ‘‘ that the 


l De Divination . 50, 103. 

2Usener, Epicurea Pracfatio, LXXI/T. 

8 Diogenes Laertius, VU, 202. 

‘ «According to Zeno virtue, according to Epicurus pleasure, is the highest and 
only good ; but the former in making virtue consist essentially in withdrawal from 
the senses or insensibility ; the latter in seeking pleasure in repose of mind. or in 
perturbability, are expressing the same belief. Man can only find unconditional 


and enduring satisfac tion. when by means of knowledge he attains toa condition 





S4 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


tones of Lucretius might in many places be mistaken for those of 
a Stoic, rather than an Epicurean. In their resistance to the com- 
mon forms of evil these systems were at one. Perhaps, too, in the 
positive good at which he aimed, the spirit of Lucretius was more 
that of a Stoic than he imagined.” ' Furthermore, both Epicureans 
and Stoics are devoid of any permanent interest in social life, and 
both would divorce the wise man from public and political activity. 
The very likeness’ of these several approaches to the main question 
at issue was calculated to engender enmitv and rancour. In addi- 
tion to which there was an irrepressible conflict between the two 
schools in the detailed development of their materialistic views. 
Speaking broadly, the occasions of this contention may be best de- 
scribed in the language of another: ‘‘ These divergencies appear 
particularly on the subject of nature, the Stoic regarding nature as a 
system ol design, the Epicureans explaining it as a mechanical prod- 
uct. Whilst the Stoics adhered to fatalism, and saw G ἃ every- 
where, the Epicureans held the theory of atoms and the theory ol 
necessity. Whilst the Stoics were speculatively orthodox, the Epi- 
cureans were irreligious free-thinkers.”* Hence 11 was inevitable that 
the author of De Rerum Natura should give large place to contro- 
versy with his master’s chief antagonists. 

Particular instances of conflict between Lucretius and the Stoic 
school appear early in the poem. The passage in which properties 
and accidents (eventa ef conjuncia) are discussed * is directly opp sed 
to the teaching of the rival philosophy which regards all states, 


qualities, VIFTTHCS, emotions, C\C.. ae corporeal 


of mind at rest with itself. and also to an indepen lence of external attractions and 


misfortunes. . . . Neither the Stoic can separate happiness from virtue, nor the 


Epicurean separate virtue trom happiness.” Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Scep 


ἔξ, pp: 595. 0 


i Ὡς llar, Roman Po Ts of the Re pith aT Ά 


2 «¢ The united weight of all these points resemblance is sufficient to warrant 


the assertion that, notwithstanding their difference, the Stoics and Epicureans 


stand on the same footing, and that the sharpness of contrast between them is Ow 
ing to their laying hold of opposite sides of one and the same principle.” Zeller, 
Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 500 

3 /b., p. 505. 


41, 430-82. 





THE STOICS. 


The Stoics and Kpicureans were agreed that reality could only be 
ascribed to material objects. They argued in almost identical terms 
that whatever affects anything, or is in turn affected by anything, 15 
bodily substance. Cicero" says: Discrepabat etiam ab fisdem (embers: 
ortbus Zeno), quod nullo modo arbitrabatur quidquam effict posse ab ea 
(natura), quae expers esset corporis—nec vero aut quod eficeret aliquid 
aul quod eficeretur posse CSSEC WON corpus, Plutarch sens ὄντα γὰρ μόνα 
τὰ σώματα καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ὄντος τὸ ποιεῖν τε καὶ «ἄσχων." 


With this declaration Epicurus concurs: 


» ε 4 ‘ > ” “- 4 » 
καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι τὸ ἀσώμτον πλὴν τοῦ κενοῦ. τὸ δὲ κενὸν οὔτε 
~ > - “ > ‘ ’ - 
ποιῆσαι ovre παθεῖν δύναται, ἀλλὰ κίνησιν μόνον δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς σώμασι παρέχε- 
εται."“ 


Lucretius Savs: 


Praeterea per se quodcumque 671], aut faciet quid 
Aut alis fungi debebit agentibus ipsum 

Aut erit, ut possunt in eo res esse gerique. 

Aft facere et fungi sine corpore nulla potest res 
Nec praebere locum porro nist inane vacansque. 
Ergo praeter inane et corpora tertia per se 

Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relingul, 
Nec quae sub sensus cadat ullo tempore nostros 


Nec ratione animi quam quisquam possit apisci.* 


lhe theory that existence belongs to that alone which is material 
necessitates the doctrine of the corporeality of the soul: nor did the 
Stoics and Epicureans alike shrink from declaring their allegiance to 


this tenet. Cleanthes and Chrvsippus assert it without hesitation. 


" ‘ » , , ΄ > 8 > τ ᾽ ᾿" Ἂ 
οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι’ 
, “"«..- ε ᾿ " ~ ’ ΝΜ 4 - ~ a 
συμπάσχει δὲ ἣ ψυχὴ TH σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῃ᾽ 
‘ ι 
αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν. σῶμα ἄρα ἣ ψυχή. . 


Other Stoic authorities are equally pronounc ed in this view. 


1 4Acad., β 4... 

2 Comm. Notit. 30, 2 in Ritter et Preller 396a. 
3 Diogenes Laertius, X. 67 

41, 440-5. 


- Zeller. SfOlcs. kL picureans and Sceptics. ant, Σ, 





CONTROVERSIAI FLEMENTS IN LU 
TI . Ε ' Ψ" it} ἢ ΩΥΤΩῚ ; res witl hat f the 
Iie spicureal position on this ques ron Colne les with that ΟἹ the 


Stoics, as the accompanying quotations sufficiently prove. 


οἱ λέγοντες ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ματαζουσιν. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν 

οὔτε πάσχειν, εἰ ἢν τοιαύτη" νῦν δ᾽ ἐναγῶς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν 
ψυχὴν τὰ συμπτώματα." 

Haec eadem ratio naturam anim aique anima 

Corpoream docel esse; ubi enim propell memora, 

Corripere ex somno col pus mulared Dullum 

ἀφο hominem tolum regere ac vers 

Quorum nil fert sine tact Poss 

Nec factum porro sine corpore, Nonne | F 


Corporea natura aninum con 


But on the same principles the 
lengths. ‘They asserted that all properties, quahtl 


} 


material. Hence, virtues and vices were accoul 


? 


poreal, and even emotions, impulses udgments anc 


are due to material causes. 


ἄτοπον yap εὖ μάλα τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακίας, πρὸς δὲ ταύταις τὰς τέχνας καὶ 
τὰς μνήμας πάσας, ἔτι δὲ φαντασίας καὶ πάθη καὶ ὁρμὰς καὶ συγκαταθέσεις σώμα- 
τα ποιουμένους ἐν μηδενὶ φάναι κεῖσθαι... οἱ δ᾽ οὐ μόνον τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακ- 
ίας ζῴα εἶναι λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη μόνον, ὀργὰς καὶ φθόνους καὶ λύπας καὶ ἔπι- 
χαιρεκακίας. οὐδὲ καταλήψεις καὶ φαντασίας καὶ ἀγνοίας, οὐδέ τὰς τέχνας Cwa, 
τὴν σκυτοτομικήν τὴν χαλκοτυπικήν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώμ- 
ατα καὶ ζῴα ποιουσι, τόν περίπατον {wov, τὴν ὄρχησιν, τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν πρ- 


οσαγόρευσιν, τὴν λοιδορίαν. 


‘The (;00d Was also regarded by th ; nm The ει 


seneca Savs. Quaeris, bonum an Corpus SU, ΤΩΙ Qed, prod ff enim, 


x 


quod Si 1 corpus est. Bonum agital animum el gio Jam modo format el 
continel, qua propria ὁ unt corpo? 1s. uae corpor: bona sunt, corpora 
sunt ergo, ef quae anim suntes nam el ᾿ Corpus CSl. . ... Non puto 16 
dubtiaturum an adfectus corpora sint.—lanquam ira, amor, fristitia. St 
dubtlas. vide an voltum nobis mutent, an frontem a Isfringanl, an fa 10 }}} 
diffundant, an rnhborem evocent, an fugent sanguinem, Qu ὦ er 
manifestas nolas corport credits 


| Jhio 











THE STOICS. 


corpora sunt, οὐ moroi animorum, el avartha. crudelitas, indurata vitia 
in statum inemendabilem adducta; ergo οἱ malitia ef species elus omnes 
malignitas, invidia, superba. Ergo et bona, primum quia contraria ist 


sunt, deinde quia « adem tibt indicia praes fabunt,' 


ruth is likewise placed in the same classification, the significance 


of truth being the knowledge which the soul possesses in itself, 


τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν οἴονταί τινες, kal μάλιστα οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, διαφέρειν τἀληθοῦς 

κατὰ τρεῖς τρόπους, οὐσίᾳ μὲν παρόσον ἣ μὲν ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀ- 

σώματον ὑπῆρχεν. καί εἰκότως φασίν’ τουτὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀξίωμά ἐστι, τὸ δέ ἀξίωμα 

λεκτόν. τὸ δὲ λεκτὸν ἀσώματον. ἀνάπαλιν δὲ ἣ ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι παρόσον ἐπιστή- 

μη πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ δοκεῖ τυγχάνειν, πᾶσα δὲ ἐπιστήμη πῶς ἔχον ἐστὶν 
ἡγεμονικόν’ τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν σῶμα κατὰ τούτους ὑπῆρχεν. 

\cainst these and other similar claims of the Stoics, Lucretius op- 

that there are but two conceivable things in the 

the void. maveries οἱ inane, ἄτομα καὶ κενόν. All 

other things are distinct entities, but properties and acc idents of 


having rial existence apart from the bodies with 


cluent. aut his contuncla duabu 
᾽ ; paella 
¢ gulf horum evenla mde 
z Quod NUSGUAIN Stilt pr Wlilade 
Vl NE δ Vue oregal ἢ 
f ] . 0 } ᾿ y ) 
:, Calor 1915, ΠΣ, αἰ εἰ. 
Aus CUNCHS M1ACTHS lHant 
ONLTa Pau DC, Tas 17 PATOL que 
P| Mi COWCOI dia. celera qQuorun 


Ldvenliu manel mcoltum NauUra AOUUQGuEe, 


f 


Hae soli SUMMUS, Ul pal CSL, 


Starting with the ᾿ » that existence 
which is material, the Stoics had great difficulty in assignin 
and space to their proper category. While they could not describe 


these as corporeal, they did speak of dav and night, months 


vears and seasons, as bodies, though it is evident that those who did 


itter et Preller. 396C. 


in Ritter et Preller. 306. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS ΙΝ LU RETIUS. 


so virtually meant that these divisions of time answered to certain 
material states: the heat of the sun, for example, being responsible 
for summer, and the other seasons being regulated duly by the ap- 


proach and retirement of this planet. 


τῶν δὲ ἐν ἀέρι γινομένων, χειμῶνα μὲν εἶναι φασὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα κατεψυγμένον 
διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πρόσω ἄφοδον' ἔαρ δὲ, τὴν εὐκρασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος, κατά τὴν πρὸς 


ἡμᾶς πορείαν. | 
ἔτι δέ καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἀσώματον, διάστημα ὄντα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως." 


γαῖ, while they admitted the incorporealit) of time, they insisted 


on calling it a thing to be regarded by itself like void, though how 


thev reconciled this obvious inconsistency 1s not recorded. ‘The 


Epicurean doctrine with reference to time is that it is a particular 
property of activity and passivity, movement and repose. 

οὔτε ἄλλό τι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατηγορητέον ὡς THY αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἔχον τῷ ἰδιώματι 
τούτῳ (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι τινές), ἀλλὰ μόνον ᾧ συμπλέκομεν τὸ ἴδιον τοῦτο καὶ 
παραμετροῦμεν, μάλιστα ἐπιλογιστέον. καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀποδείξεως προσδεῖται 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιλογισμοῦ, ὅτι ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ταῖς νυξὶ συμπλέκομεν καὶ τοῖς τούτων μέρ- 


9σιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἀπαθείαις, καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ στάσεσιν, 


ἴδιόν τι σύμπτωμα περὶ ταῦτα πάντα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐννοοῦντες, καθ᾽ ὃ χρόνον ὄνο- 
μάζομεν. ” 


This more consistent view Is well expressed by Lucretius: 


lempus item pe se n0n esl, sed rebus ab Ipsis 
Conseguilur sensus, transactum quid sit aevo, 
Lum quae res instel, guid porro deinde sequalur. 
Nec per se quemquam lempus seni e fat ndumst 


Semoltum ab rerum motu placidaque quiele, 


Perspicere ut possis res gesias funditus omnis 
Non ita uti corpus per se constare neque esse, 
Nec ratione cluere eadem qua constet inane, 
Sed magis ut merito possis eventa vocare 


Corports atque loci, res in quo quaeque gerantur.* 


ι Diogenes Laertius, VAI, 151. 
2Jb., 141, Cf., Sext. Math., X, 218, in Ritter et Preller, 3992. 
3 Diogenes Laertius, 


41, 459-63 ; 478-82. 








THE STOICS. 


The point of conflict between the two schools in this matter 
this,—the Stoics strove very hard to assign corporeality to 
Epicureans described not as being itself, but as modes of being. 

In our discussion of Heraclitus we have already adverte 
physical basis with which this philosopher provides the Stoic school 
by his doctrine οἱ primordial fire. We have also noted the 
ference of opinion held by critics regarding the real object ol Lucre- 


tius’ attack in the following lines: ' 


Ouin etiam repetunt a caelo atque ignibus emus 
Et primum faciunt ignem se verlere in auras 
Aerts, hinc imbrem gigni, terramque crear 
Ex imbrt, retroque a terra cuncta revern, 
Umorem primum, post aera, deinde calorem, 
Nec cessare haec inter se mutare, meare 

A caelo ad terram, de terra ad sidera mundi. 
Cuod facere haud ullo debent primordia pacto. 
Immutabile enim quiddam superare necessest, 
Ne res ad nilum redigantur funditus omnes: 
Nam quodcum@ue ὁ urs mutatum finibus ext, 
Continuo hoc mors est thus quod fut ante. 
Quapropler quoniam quae paulo daiximus ante 
Jn commutatum veniunt, constare ne essesl 
Ex aliis ea, quae nequeant convertier usquam, 
Ne tibi res redeant ad nilum funditus omnes. 
Quin potius tal natura praedita quaedam 
Corpora constiluas, ronem st forte crearint 
Posse eadem, demplis paucis pau sque ἢ ibults, 
Ordine mutato οἱ molt, fa ere aeris auras, 


Sic alias aliis rebus mutarier omnis P- 


Whatever we maj determine to have been the actual occasion of 
this passage, it certainly does not misrepresent the position of the 
Stoics. if aimed at them. For, observing that warmth supplies 


nourishment, motion and life to matter, and that heat is existent 1n 


all things, they ascribed the origin and preservation of the world to 





gO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


fre. Since it is a law of nature that primary being shall transmute 
itself into specific things, fire passes into air, water, earth; and 
through the distribution and combination of these elements the 


world is produced. After describing what, in the Stoic terminology, 


an element (στοιχεῖον) signifies, and explaining that Zeno and his fol- 


lowers regarded fire, air, water, earth, as equally essential matter, 
without any distinctive quality, Diogenes Laertius continues: 
> id , ? 4 e ‘ ΄ ᾿ 5 τ , ‘ - 5 
ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ, ὃ δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι, ἐν ᾧ πρώτην τὴν τῶν ἀπλα- 
νῶν σφαίραν γεννᾶσθαι, εἶτα τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων" μεθ᾽ ἣν τὸν ἀέρα" εἶτα τὸ ὕδωρ' 


ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων τὴν γῆν, μέσην ἁπάντων οὖσαν.᾽ 
He also asserts this to be their view of nature: 


δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς τὴν μὲν φύσιν εἶναι πῦρ τεχνικόν, ὁδῴ βαθίζον εἰς γένεσιν, ὅπερ 
ἐστὶ πνεῦμα πυροειδές καὶ τεχνοειδές. * 

Again on the interchange of the elements, he records the Stoic 
doctrine as follows: 

γίνεσθαι δέ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἣ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρόν, εἶτα 
τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ; τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ 
ἐπὶ πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ᾽ εἶτα κατὰ μῖξιν ἐκ τούων φυτά τε καὶ {oa καὶ 
τὰ ἄλλα γένη. ὅ 


In ἃ similar strain 1s the declaration of Plutarch concerning tne 


teaching of Chrysippus: 


i δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη" δι᾿ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται κἀκ τούτον γῆς ὑ- 
φισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται" λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ, 


οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται. * 


The account of the Stoic doctrines contained in ¢ icero § De Natura 


Deorum coincides with the testimony) ierewith presented: 


Sic enim res habel, ul omnia, quae alantur el quae crescant, contineant 


nm se vim Caloris, sine qua neque ali possent nec crescere. Nam omne, 


quod est calidum οἱ igneum, crelur et agilur molt suo. | 


Quod quidem Cleanthes his etiam arguments docet, quanta vis insu 


IVI, 137. 


Ap. Plut. Stoic, Rep. 41, 3, Ῥ' 1053, ™ Ritter et Preller, 405¢. 





THE STOICS. gi 


caloris in omni corpore: negat enim esse ullum cibum lam gravem, quin 
is nocle et die concoguatur,; cuius etiam in reliquis inest calor us, quas 
natura respuertt. . . . Omne igitur, quod vivit, sive animal sive 
terra editum, td vivit propter inclusum in eo colorem. Ex quo intellegi 

ὅ 
debet eam caloris naturam vim habere in se vitalem per omnem mundum 
pertinentem.’ 

Et cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi Con- 
tinuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua orilur aer, ex aere 
aether. deinde retrorsum vicissin ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra 
infima. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant sursus deorsus, ultro 


citro commeantibus mundi partum coniuncho continetur.* 


The resemblance between the opinions of Heraclitus already noted 
and the views of the Stoics herein expressed iS SO close as to imply 
that whatever Lucretius urges against the doctrine of elemental fire of 
the one he intends to be valid against the similar doctrine of the 
other. Both were doubtless in mind as he wrote the passage under 
consideration. Moreover, whatever he directs against the four ele- 
ments of Empedocles has a purposed bearing on the physical theories 
of the Stoics as well. 

Lucretius takes issue with the Stoics on the structure and course 
of the universe no less than on its constituent elements. Having 
controverted the doctrine of primordial fire, he proceeds to discuss 
the method by which the universal order came into existence, and 
Gnds himself again in conflict with the hereditary foe. Accident, 
and not design, is responsible for the production of the world. The 
eternal whirl of the atoms, with their perpetual collisions and attempts 
at combination. at length succeeded in begetting the present constitu- 
tion of things. This proposition Lucretius announces repeatedly in 
the progress of his poem, but never more elaborately than in the fol- 
lowing lines : 


Nam cerle neque consilio primordia rerum 
Ordine se suo quaeque sagact mente locarunt 
Nec quos quaeque darent motus pepigere profecto, 


Sed quia mulla modis multis primordia rerum 


\Cicero. De Natura Deorum, 11, 9, 24. 
2 Jb., Il, 33, 94. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Ex infinito vam tempore percila plagis 
Ponderibusque suis consuerunt concua ferrt 
Omnimodisque coire alque omnia pertemplare, 
Quae cumque inter se possent CONgTESSA ¢ reare, 
Proplerea fit uli magnum polgata per aevom 
Omne genus coetus ef molus expertun 70 
Tandem conveniant ea quae convecta repente 
Magnarum rerum fiunt exordia semper, 


Terrat marts et caelt generisque animanlum. 


involves infinity of 


Such a process of world-formation necessarily 


Lucretius introduces his argument for this 


matter and of space. 
which he illus- 


doctrine by a declaration that the universe 1s infinite, 


trates and enforces at some length. 


Omne quod est tgitur nulla regione viarum 


’ τὰ 5 J γ J j 
Finitumst; namque extremum deoeod j; 


In this he follows I pic urus with remarkable fidelity, both in ideas 


and phrase rhe ey. 
4 ᾿ ” » ε " 
τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι. τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει" τὸ δὲ ἄκρον παρ ἕτερόν 
᾿ , » " ” La 
τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ EXEL’ πέρας δὲ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν 
εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπρασμένον." 
᾿ : aces ore 
Now, space and matter, being co-extensive with the universe, are 
τ would sink by grav- 


also infinite. If space were finite. all matte! 


itv to the bottom, whereas we know it 1s in constant motion 


Praeterea spatium summat totus omne 
Undique εὐ inclusum certis consisterel oris 
Finitumque foret, tam copia material 


Undigue ponder thus soliais confluxel ad imum, 
Nec res μία gert sub cael legmin 


f »f 
POSSEL, 


lis 


Nec foret omnino caelum neque lumina So 


Ouippe ubi maleries om nis Cumtulala tat erel 
. 


} 


Ex infinito 1am tempore suosidend 


1V, 419-31. II, 1053-63 ; V, 157-94. 


21, 958-87. 
‘ Diogenes Laert US, 1 Al. 








THE STOICS. 


Af nunc, nimirum, requies data principiorum 
Corporibus nullast, quia nil est funditus imum, 
Quo quasi confluere e/ sedes ubi ponere possint, 
Semper in adsiduo motu res quaeque geruntur 
Partibus e cuncts, infernaque suppeditantur 


Ex infinito cita corpora materiai.' 


3ut matter must as surely be infinite as space, for the following 
reasons: It is a provision of nature that Void and Body should 
bound each other, and these alternations continue to infinity. If 
space alone were infinite sea, earth, heavens and all the objects of 
sense would dissolve into ruin. Indeed the atoms would never have 
combined to form things in beings; nor would the inevitable loss in 
nature be repaired if there were not an infinite supply of matter. 
The intricate clashings of the atoms would possibly maintain the 
unity of the world temporarily, but ultimately disintegration would 
occur. For the atomic collisions themselves would cease in time 
without an infinity of matter. ° 

This is the position touching infinity of space and matter which is 
taken by Epicurus, who says: 

kal μὴν kal τῷ πλήθει τῶν σωμάτων ἄπειρόν ἐστι TO πᾶν Kal τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κεν- 
οὔ. εἴ τε γὰρ ἦν τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, τὰ δὲ σώματα ὡρισμένα, οὐδαμοῦ ἂν ἔμενε τὰ 
σώματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφέρετο κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον κενὸν διεσπαρμένα, οὐκ ἔχοντα τὰ ὑπερείδον- 
τα καὶ στέλλοντα κατὰ τὰς ἀνακοπάς. εἴ τε τὸ κενὸν ἦν ὡρισμένον, οὐκ ἂν εἶχε τὰ 
ἄπειρα σώματα ὅπου ἐνέστη." 

But the Stoic doctrine of the universe is at variance with this. 
According to Zeno and his followers the earth is a globe resting in 
the centre of a system known as the world. Immediately above its 
surface is water, and beyond the water is air. Around these revolves 
the ether in a circle, composed of several strata, in which are set sun, 
moon and other heavenly bodies. Beyond this κόσμος is empty space 
extending to infinity, though the existence of any vacuum within 
the world is denied. This is the Stoic universe. In sucha scheme 


matter could not be unlimited. The Epicurean conception of the 


1T, g88—1001. 

21, 1008-51. 

’ Diogenes Laertius, X, 41, 42. 

+ Zeller, Stoics, Epicurean . and Sceptics 





ω4 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


universe corresponds with that of the Stoics to the extent of regard- 
ing the earth as placed in the center of a system ent losed by a circuit 
of ether studded with celestial spheres. But Epicurus and Lucretius 
hold this to be but one of an infinite number of worlds, while the 
Stoics content themselves with a single system and a boundless ex- 


panse of space bevond. pic ureanism, therefore, demands an infin- 


ite supply of matter for an infinite quantity of worlds. but Stoicism 


derides the idea of unlimited body, and declares that the very nature 
of the corporeal renders infinity of matter impossible. The opinions 
of the Stoic philosophers on this sul lect are by Diogenes 
Laertius in the following terms: 


ἕνα τὸν κόσμον εἶναι καὶ τοῦτον πεπερασμένον, σχῆμα ἔχοντα σφαιροειδές. . ἔξ- 
θεν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περικεχυμένον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, ὅπερ ἀσώματον εἶναι. . . ἐν δὲ 
τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτόν." 

τὸ δὲ πᾶν λέγεται (ὥς φησιν ᾿Απολλόδωρος) ὃ δ᾽ τε κόσμος, καὶ καθ᾽ ἕτερον τρόπον 
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ ἔξωθεν κενοῦ, σύστημα. ὁ μὲν οὖν κόσμος πεπερασμένος 
ἐστί" τὸ δὲ κενὸν, ἄπειρον." 

σῶμα δέ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἣ δ᾽ οὐσία καὶ πεπερασμένη ." 

But when worlds have once been formed from this infinite supply 


of matter extending through the universe, how are they held 


torether? This is the question which forces Lucretius into direct 
conflict with the Stoics, and incidently with the Peripatetics and 
SOM other philosophers. The theory of centripetal force as a solu- 


tion of the problem is scorned by the Epicurean poet. 


Tiud in his rebus longe fuge cedere, Memmn, 

Jn medium summae quod Hicunt omnia nit, 

A/que ideo mundi naturam stare sine ullis 

Iclibus externis neque quoquam poss resolv 
Summa alque ima, quod in medium sint omnia nixa; 
[psum st quicquam posse im se sistere credis, 

Li quae pondera sunt sub ferris omnia sursum 

! 


Nitier 171 lerraque retro requiescere posta. 


Balbus, who gives an exposition of the Stoic doctrines in Ciceros 


IVI, 140. 
27). 143. 
 7).. το. 


+]. 1052-9 




















THE STOICS. 


De Natura Deorum, elaborates the exact theory which Lucretius 
thus condemns. 


Omnes enim partes eius undique medium locum capessentes nituntur 
aequaliter. Maxime autem corpora inter se tuncla permanent, cum 
guast quodam vinculo circumdato colligantur,; quod faci ea natura, quae 
per omnem mundum omnia mente οἱ ratione conficiens funditur et ad 
medium rap et convertit extrema. . . . Eademque ratione mare, 
cum supra terram sit, medium tamen terrae locum expetens conglobatur 


undique aequabiliter neque redundat umquam neque effrndttur." 
Stobaeus attributes this theory to Zeno. 


πάντα τὰ μέρη TOD κόσμου ἐπὶ TO μέσον τοῦ κόσμον THY φορὰν ἔχειν, μάλισα δὲ 
τὰ βάρος ἔχοντα." 
lo Lucretius the conception is absurd, and the existence of the 


antipodes is ridiculed as the dream of fools. 


{7 per aquas quae nunc rerum stmulacra videmus, 
Adsimili ratione animalia suppa vagart 
Contendunt, neque posse € ferrts in loca caelt 
Reccidere inferiora magis quam corpora nostra 
Sponte sua possint in caelt fempla volare 

Ji, cum videant solem, nos sidera noctts 

Cornere. et alternis nobiscum tempora caelt 
Dividere et noctes parilis agitare diebus, 


Sed vanus stolidis haec {error somnia finxit |.” 


The inadequacy of the arguments adduced by the Stoics in sup- 
port of the theory of centripetal force is clearly shown by Lucretius, 
who denies that infinite space can have any center, and asserts that 
if it were possible, nothing could come to a rest at this point, since 
space will always yield to heavy bodies, which cannot lose their 
weight, in whatever direction they move.’ 

The inconsistency of the Stoics in asserting that only the heavy 


elements, earth and water, press to the center, while air and fire 


ΕἼΤ 45, 113, 116. 
?Munro, Il, p. 114 
ΕἼ, 1060-5 | 
41 τούηὴ-- ὃ 





96 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


mount upward, is expressed not only in this connection, but in a 
subsequent passage, in which Lucretius refutes the Aristotelian 
notion of an upward centrifugal force.! The language of Lucretius 


is full of force, and justly represents the views of his antagonists. 


Praeterea guoniam non omnia corpora fingunt 

In medium niti, sed terrarum aique liquors, 

Et quast terreno quae corpore contineantur, 
Umorem ponh magnasque ὁ montibus undas, 

Al contra tenuts exponunt aeris auras 

Ei calidos simul a medio differrier ignis, 

Alque ideo totum circum tremere aethera signis 

Et solis fammam per caeli caerula pasct 

Quod calor a medio fugiens se hi conligatl omnis, 
Nec prorsum arbortbus summos frondescere ramos 


Posse, nisi a terris paulatim cuique cihatum, etc.” 


The teaching of Zeno, as we have st ficient evidence, confirms the 
charge of incongruity which Lucretius here makes against his 


fi ya ywe»°s: 


” > > 3 ~ > » ἢ ‘ — ᾿Ξ , . 4 
od πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, GAA ἀβαρῆ εἶναι ἀέρα καὶ πὺρ γίγνεσθαι δὲ καὶ 
ταῦτά πως ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς ὅλης σφαίρας τοῦ κόσμον μέσον, τὴν δὲ σύστασιν πρὸς τὴν 


περιφέρειαν αὐτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι K.T.A.” 


In has been observed by Munro that ‘‘had Epicurus, while retain- 
ing his conceptions ΟἹ infinite space and matter and innumerable 
worlds and systems, seen fit to adopt this Stoical doctrine of things 
tending to a center, , 
space alike towards a center, he might have anti ipated the doctrine 
of universal gravity.”* But he did not possess interest enough in 
the problems of physical science to pursue them beyond their imme- 


diate and obvious relation to ethical questions, nor was his know- 


ledge of mathematics sufficient to lead him toward the discovery 
> 


which has made the name of Newton immortal. Lucretius, though 


LTT, 184-215. 
21, 1083-93. 
3 Stobaeus, Eclogae, in Munro, II. 


41 p. 114. 





and so to make his atoms rush from all sides ol 





THE STOICS. 97 
exhibiting keener powers of scientific observation than Epicurus 
evinces in any fragments of his writings which have been preserved, 
is in this instance, as in many others, but the echo of his idolized 
master. 


Omnis enim locus ac spatium, quod in [ane vocamus |}, 
Per medium, per non medium, concedere { debet | 
Aeque ponderibus, motus qua cumque feruntur. 

Nec quisquam locus est, quo corpora cum venerunt, 
Ponderis amissa vt possint stare in inant: 

Nec quod inane autem est ulli subsistere debet, 

Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere pergat. 

Haud igitur possunt tali ratione tenert 


Res in concilium medi cuppedine vinctae.' 


Having shown his hostility to the Stoic conceptions of the origin, 
constitution and maintenance of the universe, it is natural that 
Lucretius should oppose the doctrine of the immortality and divinity 
of the world as held by the followers of Zeno. This he does in the 


following vigorous protest: 


Multa δὲ expediam docts solacia dicts; 
Religione refrenatus ne forte rearis 

Terras et solem et caelum, mare sidera lunam, 
Corpore divino debere aelerna manere, 
Proplereaque pules ritu par esse Giganium 
Pendere eos poenas inmani pro scelere omnis, 
Out ratione sua disturbent moenia mundi 
Praeclarumque velint caeli restinguere solem, 
/nmortalia mortali sermone notantes; 

Quae procul usque adeo divine a numine distent, 
Inque deum numero quae sint indigna vider, 
Notitiam potius praebere ut posse putentur 


Quid sit vitali motu sensuque remotum.* 


While there was apparently some diversity of opinion among the 
Stoic leaders regarding portions of the doctrine herein assailed, 


1074-82. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, X, 43, 61. 


ς 


Vv. £83-2! 





gd CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


there was perfect unanimity touching the identification, Οἱ the 


creative energy inherent in primordial fire with deity. The all- 
pervading essence which was responsible for the world and its phen- 
omena, they argued, could only be defined as the highest reason, 
operative in matter as the soul isin man. The unity and perfection 
of the world could only be accounted for on this theory. Nor, with- 
out a rational principle acting upon formless matter, could reason- 
ing creatures be produced out of the world. This rational essence, 
this anima mundi, is God. But since, according to the Stoics, deity 
could only attain reality when clothed with material forms, it was in- 
evitable that the universe and its parts should be regarded as bodying 
forth divinity, and that ultimately the distinction between the ex- 
ternal manifestation and the inner spirit of being should be so 
obscured as to be practically lost, and the divinity of the world be 
acknowledged. And _ this pantheistic conception seems to have pre- 
vailed among all the great Stoics except Boethus, who insisted on a 
separation between God and the worl 

Cicero has presented the Stoic view of the divinity of the universe 
and its parts, and the arguments by which this proposition was Sus- 
tained with great fulness, as the accompanying excerpts from his 
elaborate discussion will sufficiently show. ‘To Zeno he attributes 


these sentiments: 


Ouod ratione utitur, id melius est quam id, quod ratione non ullur; 


nihil autem mundo melius, rattione igitur mundus ulilur. 


Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens; mundi 


autem partes sentientes sunt; non igitur caret sensu earn. 

Nihil quod animi quodque rationis esl expers, id gen- 
erare ex se potest animantem conpotemque rationis, mundus autem 
general animantis conpotesque rationis: animans est igitur mundus com- 
posgue rationes. Cur tgitur mundus non animans saprensque 
udicetur, cum ex se procreet animantis atgue sapientis >” 

Natura est tigitur, quae contineat mundum omnem eumque fuealur, el 
ea quidem non sine sensu atque ratione; omnem enim naluram necesse 
est, quae non solttarta sit neque simpler, sed cum alio tuncta atque conexa, 

ι Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 144-100. 


2 De Natura Deorum, ΕΣ SE, 22: 





THE STOICS. 99 
habere aliquem in se principatum. Principatum autem id dico, 
guod Graect hyepovundy vocant, quo nihil in quoque genere nec potest nec 
debet esse praestantius. Ita necesse est tlud etiam, in quo sit totius naturae 
principalus, esse omnium optimum omniumque rerum potestate dominatuque 
dignissimum. Videmus aulem in partibus mundi (nihil est enim in omni 
mundo, quod non pars univers sit) inesse sensum atque rationem. In ea 
parte igitur, in qua mundi inest principatus, haec imesse necesse est, ef 
acriora quidem atque maiora. Quodcirca sapientem esse mundum necesse 
est, naturamque eam, quae res omnes conplexa teneat, perfectione ration- 
ἦς excellere, eoque deum esse mundum, omnemque vim mundi natura di- 
vina continert.' 


In arguing for the eternal wisdom and virtue of the world the 


Stoic advocate Says: 


Si rationis particeps sit nec sit tamen a principio sapiens, non sit deter- 
jor mundi potius quam humana condicio,; homo enim sapiens frert potest, 
mundus autem st tin aeterno praeteriti temporis spatio fuit imsipiens, nun- 
guam profecto sapientiam consequetur, ta ertt homine detervor. Quod 
quoniam absurdum est, et sapiens a principio mundus et deus habendus est. 

Est autem nihil mundo perfectius, nthil virtute melus ; 1917 
mundi est propria virlus. Nec vero hominis naiura perfecta est, et ef- 
ficittur tamen in homine virtus; quanto igitur 2721 mundo Saciius. E's 


ergo 171 eo wrlus sapiens est ro 1/ur el proplerea deus.” 


Diogenes Laertius, in specifying the opinions of Zeno’s disciples on 
the subject under discussion, has the following: 


λέγουσι δὲ κόσμον τριχῶς, αὐτόν τε τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐκ πάσης οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιόν. ὃς 
δὴ ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγένητος, δημιουργὸς av τῆς διακοσμήσεως, κατὰ χρόνων 
ποιὰς περιόδους ἀναλίσκων εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὴν ἅπασαν οὐσίαν καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ 


γεννῶν." 


θεὸν δὲ, εἶναι ζῶον ἀθάνατον, λογικὸν,τέλειον, ἢ νοερὸν ἐν εὐδαιμονίᾳ, κακοῦ παν- 
τὸς ἀνεπίδεκτον προνοητικὸν κόσμου τε καὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ" μὴ εἶναι μέντοι ἀνθρωπό- 
> ‘ 4 ‘ 4 ~ e ἢ LA ’ , ~ 
μορφον. εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν, δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, Kal ὥσπερ πατέρα πάντων" κοινῶς 
τε καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ τὸ διῆκον διὰ πάντων, ὃ πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις προσονομά- 
ἵεται κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις." 


1 De Natura Deorum, Il, 29, 39. 
2 Jb., 36-39. 
3 Diogenes Lace rtius. VII. 137. 


+ Jh., 147. 





IOC CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μὲν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον, καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν" ὁμοιως δὲ 


Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ ιά περὶ θεῶν, καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ θεῶν." 


It is but a step from the acknowledgment of the deity of the 
world to the acceptance of the divinity of the heavenly bodies which 
form such an important part of the κόσμος. This the Stoic Balbus 
avers in Cicero’s dissertation on the nature of the gods. * 

In the same immediate connection is a hearty commendation of 
Aristotle. whose views on the doctrine under discussion — har- 
monized with the Stoic teaching, and against whom, therefore, 
together with the Peripatetics, and even Plato, who taught a similar 
theory, Lucretius, as Munro maintains, evidently directs his shaft. 

Because, as has already been demonstrated in the third book of 
his poem, mind cannot be conceived by him as existing apart from 
the body, senses and blood, Lucretius insists that the world and its 
parts cannot be endowed with vitality and intelligence, and is there- 
fore not divine. ἢ 

But, while this passage seems conclusive against the doctrine of the 
world as a living organism, it must be acknowledged that Lucretius 
has been betrayed by his poetic feeling into characterizing the uni- 
verse in terms Which are only appropriate in connection with living 
beings. Following the analogy of the human body, he has described 
the world as being produced, increased, wasted and ultimately de- 


stroved like an animal. According to his opinion, it assimilates 


breathes through pores, puts forth herbage corresponding with 


fi od, 


1 Diogenes Laertius, ΝῊ, 148. 
2 Aique hac mundi divinitate perspecta tribuenda est sideribus eadem divinilas, 


quae ἐλ mobilissima purissimag ue aetheris parte gignuntur, neque ulla praeterea 


sunt admixta natura totaque sunt calida atgue perlucida, ut ea quogue rectissime e: 
De Natura Deorum, IU, 39. 


Υ 


animantia esse et sentire atque intellegere dicantur. 
θεοὺς δὲ Kal τὸν κόσμον Kal τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ 


ot Στωικοὶ. . ἀποφαίνονται. 
/, 7, 33 Dox., 305, in Ritter 


τὴν γῆν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀνωτάτω πάντων νοῦν αἰθέρι. Ἴ Zac. 
et Prelier, 398B. 


Sensum autem astrorum atque tntell gentiam maxume a clarat ordo eorum alque 


constantia. Sequitur ergo. ul ipsa sua sponte, Suo Sens ac divinilate 
moveantur.—De Natura Deorum, 11. 43. 
$71, 291. 


ΦΥ͂, 138 





THE STOTCS, 


the hair and feathers of animals, begets offspring and exhibits the 
multiform and varied phenomena of living creatures. ' 

Epicurus denounces the doctrine of the divinity of the stars in 
the following language : | 

μήτε αὖ πυρὸς ἀνάμματα συνεστραμμένου THY μακαριότητα κεκτημένα κατὰ Bov- 
λησιν τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας λαμβάνειν." 

δεῖ κατανοεῖν, ὅτι τάραχος ὁ κυριώτατος ταῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ψυχαῖς γίνεται ἐν τῷ 
ταῦτα μακάριά τε δοξάζειν (εἶναι) καὶ ἄφθαρτα, καὶ ὑπεναντίας ἔχειν τούτῳ βυυλή. 
σεις ἅμα καὶ πράξεις καὶ αἰτίας." 

Though Lucretius denies the divinity of the world, he is not so far 
apart from his philosophic rivals on the question of the world’s de- 
structibility as on first observation would appear to be the case. 
The difference between the Stoic and the Epicurean positions on this 
subject was due chiefly to the divergence of their respective Concep- 
tions of the universe. Zeno and many of his disciples held the theory 
of recurrent cycles in the career of the world. ΑΒ matter had in the 
process of creation been separated from primary being, so eventually 
it would return to primary being at the end of the present course of 
things, when a general conflagration would dissolve everything into 
its primitive elemental condition, ΔΒ soon as this dissolution had 
occurred, how ever. there would begin the formation of a hew world 
exactly conforming in every particular to the preceding one, the 
identical persons, things and events completing the new cycle which 
existed in the previous aeon. | 

ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ φθαρτὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, ἅτε γενητὸν τῷ λόγῳ τῶν δι᾿ αἰσθή- 
σεως νοουμένων' οὗ τε τὰ μέρη φθαρτά, ἔστι καὶ τὸ ὅλον' τὰ δὲ μέρη τοῦ κόσμον φθαρτά, 
és ἄλληλα γὰρ μεταβάλλει" φθαρτὸς ἄρα ὁ κόσμος. καὶ ἔι τι ἐπιδεκτικόν ἐστι τῆς 


ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον μεταβολῆς, φθαρτόν ἐστι’ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἄρα’ ἐξαυχ μοῦται γὰρ καὶ 
ἐξυδατοῦται. * 

Χρύσιππος. . - φησὶν αὔξεσθαι μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὸν ἅπαντα καταναλώσῃ. 
ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ θάνατος μέν ἐστι ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἣ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου 
ψυχὴ οὐ χωρίζεται μὲν αὔξεται δὲ συνεχῶς μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὴν ἐξαναλώσῃ τὴν 
ὕλην, οὐ ῥητέον ἀποθνήσκειν τὸν κόσμον." 


ΟΣ Il, 1105-74; VI, 492-4; V, 788-91 ; 1, 774. Masson, Afomic Theory of 
ΚΌΜΗΝ, PP- 14..9, has a very lucid discussion of this apparent incongruity. 

Diogenes Laertius, X, 77. 

ἐν», δι: 

‘7b., VIl, 141. 


, ᾽ , ° . } . 4 a ν- 4 - . 4 “{ a 
Plut. Sto. Rep., 39. 2. ἢ. 1052, mM Zeller. Stotcs, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 


164, 2. | 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


While this is the view of the Stoics in the main, several prominent 
leaders. including Panaetius, B ethus and others, dissented from 
this judgment. Posidonius 1s also claimed by Philo as in this class. 
But Diogenes Laertius, who is confirmé d by Plutarch and Stobaeus, 
asserts that Posidonius believed in the theory of recurrent world- 
cycles.’ ᾿ 

The Stoic universe, it must be remembered, however, consisted of 
the κόσμος, 
and infinite space. Into this limitless void the κόσμος was dissolved, 
and from this boundless space it was called together again after each 
conflagration. In this sense its immortality must be understood. 
The Epicurean universe, on the other hand, was filled with innum- 
erable worlds or systems, each of which. as it had arisen in time out 


of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, would also in time wear away 


and utterly disintegrate into its original and indivisible atoms. but 
the process of creating worlds anew would continue to infinity, the 
clashing atoms striking out some fresh order and system as often as 
by accident the conditions of world formation shoul be ful- 
filled. In a way, therefore, the Epicurean τὸ πᾶν 1S as immortal as 
the Stoic κόσμος, though the in lividual world systems of the former 
are eternally subject to destruction. 

Stoicism, it has been remarked, 1s as mut h a system of religion as 
it is a system of philosophy.’ Theological questions, therefore, oc- 
cupy a position of pre-eminent importance in its scheme of thought. 
Moreover, its advocates constantly attempt to harmonize its prin- 
ciples with conventional religion. Epi ureanism, on the other 
hand. treats theology with little less than contempt, and protests 
against the traditional faith as stultifving to the intellect and _ per- 
nicious in its influence on character. The Stoic asserts his belief in 
God on the ground that the existence of the world and the phenom- 
ena of life are inexplicable without the hypothesis of an originating 
and controlling Reason, and because 


the primary and universal judgments of mankind.? The Epicurean, 


Epicureans and δ᾽ 


Natura Deorum, 11. 


ἡ e.. the world-system of which the earth is the centre, - 





the notion of deity is one of 


THE STOICS, 103 
on the contrary, discerns nothing in nature to indicate the governing 
presence of the divine, but agrees with the Stoic, though for reasons 
of his own. that the universal belief in the gods is based on the actual 


existence of these deities. 


Solus enim (Epicurus) vidit primum esse deos, quod 11 omnium an- 
imis eorum notionem impressissel ipsa natura, (uae est enim gens aul 
quod genus hominum, quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quan- 
dam deorum? quam appellat πρόληψιν Epicurus, id est anticeplam animo 
ret quandam informationem, sine qua nec intelhgi quicquam nec quaert 
nec disputari potest." 


That Epicurus believed this πρόληφις to be wrought upon the hu- 
man consciousness by those emanations, the doctrine of which he 
borrowed from Empedocles and Democritus, and which have already 
been considered by us,’ is amply testified. 

᾿Επίκουρος δὲ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους φαντασιῶν οἴεται τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἔννοι - 
αν ἐσπακέναι θεοῦ μεγάλων γὰρ εἰδώλων, φησί, καὶ ἀνθρωπομόρφων κατὰ τοὺς 
ὕπνους προσπιπτόντων ὑπέλαβον καὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις ὑπάρχειν τινὰς τοιούτους 


θεοὺς ἀνθρωπομόρφους." 
Cicero’s Epicurean advocate suggests the same: 


Nam a natura habemus omnes omnium gentium spectem nullam alam 
nist humanam deorum, quae enim forma alia occurri umquam aut mon- 
anti cuiquam aut dormienti? Sed ne omnia revocentur ad primas noli- 


ones: ratio hoc tdem tpsa declarat.’ 
Lucretius expresses the same theory: 


de cor pore Viulae SANCTO simulacra feruniur 


Jn mentes hominum divinae nunta formae.” 


Ouippe e/enim tam lum divom mortalia saecla 
Egregias animo facies vigilante videbant, 
Li magis in somnis mirando corporis ἀπο ἢ. 


i Cicero. De Natura Deorun, 1, 43. θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν" ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐσ- 
X, I 


τιν ἣ γνῶσις. Diogenes La rtius, 23. 
“pp. 77, 49, 50. 
Sextus Math. IX, 25, in Usener Epicurea, p. 
‘De Natura Deorum, 1. 40. 
Vu oe. 77. 


/ 7 “8 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


His igitur sensum tribuebant proplerea quod 
Membra movere videbantur vocesque supe? bas 
Mitlere pro facie praecla a et virthus amplis. 


Aelernamque dabant vitam, quia semper eorum 


Subpeditabatur facies ef forma manebal, 


kt tamen omnino quod tants vu thus auctos 

Non temere ulla vt convinet posse putabant. 
Fortunisque tdeo longe praestar putabant, 

Quod mors timo? haut quemquam vexarel eorum 
Et simul in somnis quia multa et mira videbant 
Lificere et nullum capere tpsos inde laborem.' 


It has also been conjectured that Epicurus maintained a belief in 


the ods 11 order LO make μι ssible the realization of the lofty ideals 


of happiness which he conceived, but which were confessedly neve®’ 
attained in human life. * 


But the opinions of the character an Ι function of the gods as held 


by the Stoics and Epicureans respectively were totally at variance. 


Primary being WaS conceived of by th . Sto δ Th On ASPet [. 2s the 


roduc ec. 


Reason, from which and by which all things are ] 
The ACCOM Palys 


(jenerative 
Attention has already been drawn to this tenet.” 


ing quotations likewise support this position: 


τοῦτον yap ὄντα ἀΐδιον διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα." 
ἕν τε εἶναι θεὸν καὶ νοῦν, καὶ εἱμαρμένην καὶ Δία, πολλαῖς τε ἑτέραις ὀνομασὶαις 
προσονομάζεσθαι. κατ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὖν καθ αὑτὸν ὄντα, τρέπειν τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσί- 


αν δὶ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ’ καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ γονῇ τὸ σπέρμα περιέχεται, 
τοιόνδε ὑπολιπέσθαι ἐν τῴ ὑγρῷ, εὐεργὸν av- 


οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον 


σπερματικὸν λόγον ὄντα τοῦ κόσμου, 

~ - ‘ . ‘ ω € ~ , 
τῷ ποιοῦντα THY ὕλην πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἑξῆς γένεσιν" 
σαρα στοιχεῖα, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν." 

Δία μὲν γάρ φασι, δὶ ὃν τα πάντα’ Ζῆνα δὲ καλοῦσι, παῤ ὅσον τοῦ tyv αἴτιός 
» γν ‘ - Ω , » ~ ‘ Ν Ν Ἷ ΄ "" 
ἐστιν, ἢ διὰ TOU ἴην κεχὠρῃηκεέν᾽" Αθηνᾶν δὲ, κατὰ τὴν εἰς αἰθέρα διάτασιν τοῦ ηγε- 
Ἥραν δὲ, κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ τεχνικὸν πῦρ' καὶ Ποσειδῶνα, κατὰ τὴν 
κατὰ τὴν εἰς γῆν’ ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας προσηγορ- 


εἶτα ἀπογεννᾷν πρῶτον τὰ τέσ- 


μονικοῦ αὐτοῦ" 
εἰς τὸ Vypdv’ καὶ Δήμητραν, 
ίας, ἐχόμενοί τινος οἰκειότητος, ἀπέδοσαν." 


'V, 1169-82. 

‘Zeller, Stoics, /eprcureans and Sceplics, p. 400 
3. Diogenes Laertius, ΝΊ 137, quoted p. 99. 
ΕἸ, Vil, 

ὃ /b., 135, 130. 


6 Jb., 147. 





THE STOICS. ror 


It is obvious from these declarations that, while the Stoics in strict 

consistency assigned the name of Deity in its original significance only 
’ = , = | te 

the ae primar} Being, ‘‘they did not hesitate to apply it in a 
limited and derivative sense to all those objects by means of which 
the divine power is especially manifested. © ι 

The Epicureans, on the other hand, derided the very idea of the 
directing presence of deity in the creation, preservation “mil guidance 
of the world. The prime purpose of Lucretius, eae ere at the 
beginning of his poem and reiterated many times in its progress, 1s to 


demonstrate 


CT unde queal eS “714. Jide 


THO ἡ αἰ τ WO lO fianwl opera 


Iceros exponent of Epicurean principles, ridicules the 
world through divine agency, and 


rf *f cy 
‘ SOTTING 


to the hy pot hesis of Oo" εἰς for lack 
accounting for the phenomena of nature 
Docu enim nos idem, Jul « eleva, Nalusa effe chum esse mundum, nihil 
opus fuisse fabrica, famgue eam rem esse facilem, quam vos effict negatis 
ine divina posse solertia, ut innumerabilis natura mundos off clura 
efficial, effecerit, Quod quia quem ad modum natura ΠΧ, a sine aliqua 
mente possit non videlts, fragict poet cum explicare argument 


ΑΝ non poleshs, ¢ onfugilis ad deum. 


The gods of the Epicureans are beings like men, but of a more re- 


{: ΩΝ > =] . ‘] . ’ ] . Ὶ 
fined essence. ‘The εἴδωλα of the gods which are presented to our 


; ] δ. δ ] .? . } . " 
minds, whethel asleep or awake, take . oure of men. Moreover 


the human form is the most admirable tha an be conceived of for 
Ξ : ] ] ) ἢ ᾿ 
rational and happy beings. But divine ‘s are not tangible to 


mortals. 


() ᾿ ἣ res WA) ~lyone ranhiy δῶν wood r j 
H Dili j if LEON Cf AL Il 1 1472} CN. Ver lanen ea spect ς COr- 


pus, nec habel sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS ΙΝ LU 


Lpicurus autem, gui res oc ultas et penitus abditas non modo 
widerit animo, sed etiam sic tractel, ul manu, docet eam esse vim el nalur- 
am deorum, ul primum non sensu, sed mente cernalur; nec solidtital 
qguadam nec ad numerum, ul ea, quae ile propler firmitatem στερέμνια ap 


} 
i 


pellat, sed imaginibus stmilitudine et transitione percepts. 


Tenvis enim natura deum longeque remota 
Senstbus ab nostris animi vix mente videlur, 


QOuae guoniam manuum tactum ὁ uffugil ef iclum, 


7 
j 


Tactile nil nobis quod sil contingere devel. 


Tungere enim non quit quod tangi non licet ipsum.* 


Now. these deities, which are innumerable, are immortal and per- 
fectly happy. 

πρῶτον μὲν Tov θεὸν ζῴον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἣ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ 
νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος 
ἀνοίκειον αὐτῴ πρόσαπτε' πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετὰ ἀφθαρ- 
σίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε." 

τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε 


οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται" ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. ᾿ 


Ea videlicet, qua nthil beatius, nihil omnibus bonis affiuentius cogiart 


potest. Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est inplicatus, nulla opera 


molitur, sua saptentia et virlute σα μοί, havel e vploralum fore se semper 


cum tn maximis, tum in aeternis voluplatibus. 


Omnis enim per se divom natura necessest 
JInmortali aevo summa cum pace “πα 
Semota ab nostris rebus setunctaque longe, 
Nam privata dolore omni, privata peri lis, 
[psa suis pollens opibus, nil inmdiga nostri, 


Nec bene promeritis capilur neque languur ira.” 


Their places of abode must also differ from the habitations of men, 


corresponding in refinement with their bodies. 


Cicero, 1) 

2 Ducretius, 

+ Diog Al 

+ 2... 139. Rs 

5 De Natura Deorum 
6 Jucretius, ΠῚ. 640 





THE STOITCS, 


(AuaTe Ο7141 sedes 16 9704 77 14 cedibus PILE 


Dissimiles debent. 0,140 4 de ( or pore POrum.' 


Apparel divum numen sedesque quielae 

(μας neque concutiunt venti nec nubtla nimbis 
Aspergunt neque nix acri concrela p) uInNa 
Cana cadens violat semperque innubilis aether 
Inlegit, et large diffuso lumine rident. 

Omnia suppeditat porro natura neque ulla 


) . . γ ; . 7 , 
Res animt pacem delibat tempore mn ullo.* 


(sods. however. it 1S Cas\ to observe, who have the amount of bus- 
iness on their hands which the Stoics attribute to their deities, must 


be far from happy, so Ipicurus and his disciples would contend. 


οὐ yap συμφωνοῦσιν πραγματεῖαι kal φροντίδες kal ὀργαὶ kal χάριτες pakapid- 
τητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίνεται." 
καὶ ἣ θεία φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῇ προσαγέσθω, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλειτούργητος διατηρεί 


σθω καὶ ἐν τῇ πάσῃ μακαριότητι.' 


The Epicurean Velleius indulges in merriment over the Stoic 
notion of the world as a divinity, eternally revolving in space with 
inevitable discomfort, and seriously combats their favorite doctrine of 
Providence on the ground that such constant occupation would be 
destructive of the peace and quietude which are indispensable in his 


opinion to the complete happiness of the KO US, 


να... ἃ, Ἂ 7 7 j 7 ͵ 7 . 
Sive in tpso mundo deus inest aliquis, qui regal, qui gubernel, qui cur- 
ras aslrorum, mufationes temporum, rerum ricissiludines ordinesque Con- 
vervel, terras et maria contemplans hominum commoda vilasque tuealur, 


ne tlle est implicatus molestis negotus et operosis! Nos autem beatam vit- 


am tn antmi securitate el tn omnium vacatione munerum ponimus. 


We have already seen how necessary to the happiness of the gods 


Lucretius regards their total exemption from the cares of government. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN 


to whi h the Stoics 


adhered with extraordinary tenacity BE steemed fundamental 


jut the providence of the eods IS 


in their svstem ol philosophy. 


τὸν δὴ κόσμον διοικεῖσθαι κατὰ νοῦν καὶ πρόνοιαν. . . . εἰς ἅπαν αὐτοῦ μέρος 
διήκοντος τοῦ νοῦ, καθάπερ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς. . . . οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσ- 
μον ζῴον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικὸν ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, κ. τ. a, 

λέγει γοῦν Χρύσιππος ἐοικέναι Tw μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν κόσμον, τῇ δὲ 
ψυχῇ τὴν πρόνοιαν’ ὅταν οὖν ἐκπύρωσις yévnta:, μόνον ἄφθαρτον ὄντα τὸν Δία 
τῶν θεῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν, εἶτα ὁμοῦ γενομένους ἐπὶ μιᾶς τῆς τοῦ αἰθέ- 


ρος οὐσίας διατελεῖν ἀμφοτέρους." 


The Stoic Balbus presents the arguments of his school in defence 


of th - doc trine of the providence ΟἹ the eods In a three-fold ATTANLe 


ment. as follows: First, if we admit the existence ol vods, we must 
orant that they YovVvern the world, otherwise they would hot cles rye 
} ) » » 1eK* Ϊ ῃ } ΧΟΥ͂Ν ΠΤ .(}) ()] ri Φ 1] rlie ἢ | 5 
the title οἱ deities: for the verv conception MIS 1] 1168 that they 


are independent of all power other than their own, 


Ι 1 
! , γ" ΡῈ 


work together harmoniously and wisely for the ἢ 


nothing less than the government 


i 


and unity of the universe indi 


1 


control of a force working intelligently an skillfully. which we de 


ne man to ΟΥ̓Δ ΠῚ" 


t 


convineed that It 


is under the dire » min he regularity, har- 
mony and beauty « heavenly bodies: the constitution, endow 


ments and wondrous adaptations ΟἹ plants and animals: and the 


various productions ol the earth, suited so remarkably to the need 
of livine creatures, all unite to confirm the wise Man 1ὴ his belief in 


a divine providen e, Based on the most reliable extant authorities, 


Zeller has formulated the Stoic arguments [ol this doctrine in this 


(oT 


perfection of God (3) Krom the eory of nece ν. (4) From 


the | reknowledge of God. (5) Ir niation. ἢ 


ler: (1) From the general conviction of mankind. From the 


THE STOICS. IOg 


Perhaps the finest expression of the Stoic belief in the guidance of 
God which has been preserved for us is contained in the famous 


Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, a portion of which we quote. 


κύδιστ᾽ ἀθανάτων, πολυώνυμε, παγκρατὲς αἰεί, 
Ζεῦ, φύσεως ἀρχηγέ, νόμον μέτα πάντα κυβερνῶν, 
χαῖρε" σὲ γὰρ πάντεσσι θέμις θνητοῖσι προσαυδᾶν. 
ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἔσμεν, ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες 
μοῦνοι, ὅσα ζωεῖ τὲ καὶ ἕρπει θνήτ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν. 

τῷ σε καθυμνήσω, καὶ σὸν κράτος αἰὲν ἀείσω. 

σοὶ δὴ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος, ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν 
πείθεται ἢ κεν ἄγῃς καὶ ἐκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται. 
τοῖον ἔχεις ὑποεργὸν ἀκινήτοις ἐνὶ χερσίν, 
ἀμφήκη, πυρόεντα, ἀεὶ ζώοντα κεραυνόν, 

τοῦ γὰρ ὑπὸ πληγῇς φύσεως πάντ᾽ ἐῤῥιγασιν. 


οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον, 
οὔτε κατ᾽ αἰθέριον θεῖον πόλον, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ πόντῳ. 
πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν ἀνοίαις. 
ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ τὰ περισσὰ ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖναι, 
καὶ κοσμεῖς τὰ ἄκοσμα, καὶ οὐ φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν. 
ὧδε γὰρ εἰς ἕν ἅπαντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν. 


Ld nd / , , ‘ a7 1 
ὥσθ᾽ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον alev ἐόντα. 


The whole teaching of these noble verses is utterly repugnant to 
the theology of the Epicureans, who not only deem the labor of rul- 
ing the world incompatible with the unquestioned happiness of the 
gods, but who profess to see nothing in the adjustments of nature or 
the experience of men to justify a belief in the providence of the 
gods. One of the chief reasons for the Stoic confidence in the ex- 
istence and guardianship of the gods lies in the perfection of the 
world which they allege, but which the Epicureans strenuously 


deny. 


Quid autem est tnscitius quam eam natluram, quae omnis res sil Con- 
plexa, non oplumam dict. Negue enim est quicquam aliud 
praeter mundum, cur nihil absit, quodque undique aptum aique perfectum 


expletumque stl omnibus suts numerts et partibus.° 





ἱ Stobaeus fee loga o9 
2 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 11. 36, 37. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Lucretius can discover no warrant in nature for such a view. On 


the contrary, he finds such palpable imperfections in creation that if 


he were totally ignorant of the true philosophy of the universe he 
would still never hesitate to condemn the notion that the world was 
constructed by divine power. 

Nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint, 

Hoc tamen ex tpsis cach rationibus ausim 

Confirmare altisque ex rebus reddere multrs, 

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse crealtam 


Naturam mundi; tanta stat praeditla culpa." 


The argument by which Lucretius sustains his opinion is inter- 
esting, if not convincing. The defect of nature 15 apparent in the 1m- 
mense waste of the world as compared with its productive portions, 
Even where tillage is possible with almost incredible labor, the toil 
of the husbandman is frequently thrown away, for thorns infest the 
soil, and burning heat, chilling blasts and destructive hurricanes de- 
feat the projects of the farmer. Again, man himself is beset with 
constant perils. Ferocious beasts roam abroad. Disease and death 
walk in the train of the seasons. Helpless infancy is dependent on 
the care of elders, while the young of animals flourish attended only 
by the bounty of nature. ἢ 

There is an uncertainty and capriciousness also about the opera- 


tion of some of the forces of nature, not to speak of the impossibil- 


ity that any personal agency should control these forms of energy, 


which prevents him from believing the gods maintain any active in- 


terest in the progress of human affairs. 


Quae bene cognita st teneas, natura videlur 

Libera continuo, domints privata superbis, 

Ipsa sua per se sponte omnia dis agere expers. 

Nam pro, sancta deum tranquilla pectora pace 

Quae placidum degunt aevom vilamque serenam, 
Ouis regere immenst summam, quis habere profund 


Indu manu validas polis est moderanter hahenas, 





THE STOICS. 


Quis pariler caelos omnis convertere et omnis 
lenibus aetherus terras sufire feracts, 
Omnibus inve locits esse omni tempore praesto, 
Nubibus ut tenebras facial caelique serena 
Conculhial sonitu, tum fulmina mittat et aedis 
Saepe suas adisturbet et in deserta recedens 
Saevial, exercens telum, quod saepe nocentes 


Praetertl exanimaique indignos inque merentes ?' 


rhe real animus of the Epicurean eagerness to disprove the prov- 
idence of the gods lies, of course, in the purpose to deliver men 
from the fear of deity, which Lucretius and his school felt to be in- 


cident to a belief in this doctrine. 


Nam et praestans deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et 
aelerna esset et beatissima (habet enim venerathonem tustam, quicquid ex- 
cellil), ef metus omnis a vt atque ira deorum pulsus essel; intellegitur 
enim a beala inmortalique natura et tram et gratiam segregart,; quibus re- 


motis nullos a superts impendere metus.” 


The supreme inspiration of Lucretius’ philosophical inquiries is the 
desire to deliver men from the dread of divine malevolence. His 
passion for the redemption of mankind from irrational terrors is ex- 


ceedingly impressive. He bewalls the puerile credulity of the int 


Nam veluti puert trepidant alque omnia caects 
In tenebris metuunt, sic nos in luce timemus 
Interdum, nilo quae sunt metuenda magis quam 


Quae puert tn tenebris pavilant fingunique fulura.” 


He would dispel such groundless forebodings by means of the rev- 
elations of true science. | 


Hunc igitur terrorem animt tenebrasque necessest 
Non radit solis neque lucida tela det 
Discutiant, sed nalurae species ratiogue.* 


ΙΟ00-1104. 
Natura Deorum, 1, 45. 
» 55-55. 


[211-17. 





12 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


It is lack of knowledge which betrays men into misinterpretations 
of the phenomena of nature, and impels them to cringe before the 
gods as if they were the relentless enemies of mankind. We ob- 
serve the wondrous movements of the celestial bodies, and are in- 
capable of solving the problems of their regularity and persistence, 


and profound misgivings are awakened. 


Templat enim dubiam mentem rationis egestas, 
Ecquaenam fuertt mundi genitalis origo, 

Et simul ecquae sit finis, guoad moenta mundt 
Sollicit’ molus hunc possint Serre laborem, 
An divinitus aeterna donata salute 

Perpeluo possint aevt labenta tractu 


Immensi validas aevt contemnere viris.* 


The vivid lightnings and the noisy thunder terrif) monarchs and 


people with the expectation of merited retribution. ‘The tempestu- 


ous sea mocks the skill and defies the prayers of the mariner. The 


mysterious earthquake tumbles down the proudest works of man, 


while he, unable to account for these disasters on natural grounds, at- 


tributes them to the wrath of the gods.° 


O genus infelixn humanum, fala divis 

Cum tribuil facta alque tras adtunxu acerbas! 

Quantos tum gemilus tpst sibi, quantaque nobis 

l‘ulnera, quas lacrimas peperere minortbu nostris! 
A better philosophy, Lucretius believes, would emancipate human- 
ity from the grasp of such a foolish trepidation; and with this in 
to the consider- 


When 


view he devotes the entire sixth book of his poem 


ation of the physical, phenomena which appall the senses. 
. Ἂ 
assign fear-inducing 


men, for the want of the true reason of things, 
operations of nature to the activity of the gods, Lucretius feels that 


thev are stultifying both themselves and the deities whom they seek 


to propitiate. 


1V, 1211-17. 
3V, 1215-40. 
ἐν. 1194-97. 





THE STOICS. 


Nam hy Ale Gitl adlicere ΤΗ͂Σ ῬρΟ 7142 AGeCTC AeUVOM, 
Sv /amen interea mirantur qua ratione 

Quaeque gert possini, praesertim rebus in ἰδ 
Quae supera capul aetheras cernuntur in ors, 
Rursus in antiquas referuntur religionis, 

Lit dominos acris adscrscunt, omnia posse 

Ou0os misery ( redunt, lon 1) Ἴ quid queal CISC, 
Ouid nequeat, finita polestas denique Ομ πὸ 
Quanam sit ratione atque alte lerminus haerens; 
uo Mags erranles caeca ratione fe) 1,11147΄. 
Quae nist resputs ex animo longeque remitts 
Dis indigna purare alienaque pacis eorum, 
Delibata deum per tle tibt numina sancta 

Saepe oberunt; non quo violart summa deum vis 
Posstt, ut ex ira poenas pelere nbibal acris. 
Sed quia tute tibt placida cum pace quietos 
Constitues magnos trarum volvere fluctus, 

Nec delubra deum placido cum pectore adibis, 
Nec de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur 
In mentes hominum divinae nuntia formae, 
Suscipere haec animt dranquilla pace valebrs. 


Inde videre licet quals 1am vila sequalur," 


Almost the only occasion for scientific study which Lucretius 
would deem legitimate is the necessity of showing by this kind of 
research that the things which terrifv man in the external universe 
have a natural rather than a divine origin And this is the reason 
which Epicurus himself gives for his investigations in the realm of 
physics. Men can never realize even approximate happiness until 
their bondage to superstition has been broken, a result which an 


inquiry into the processes of nature will achieve 
εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε 
ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν αλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμι- 


πρὸς ἡμᾶς ῃ τι, 
ὧν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας." 


It is characteristic of Lucretius that after ἃ lengthy disquisition on 





[14 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, THE STOICS. rms 


the natural philosophy of thunderbolts he should turn with vehe- quamquam sit perexiguum, famen, st inciderit in conciprentem conpren- 
mence upon the traditional mode of accounting for the ravages of dentemque naturam nanclumque sit matertam, qua alt augerique possi, 
lightning, and endeavor to reduce the theory to utter absurdity. It is Wa fingat el effi tal in suo quidque genere.' 


folly. he says, to consult the Tuscan rolls to ascertain the will of the 
; . ᾽ . ° ° Wi » ῳ , . " 4 ‘ , ᾿ ’ ae > 0 : ἢ ‘ γα". 
eods in the thunderbolt’s erratic course. If Jupiter controls the ith the Stoics the adapting of means to ends signified that ever) 
lightning why does he frequently smite the innocent instead of the thing had been created for something higher, except man and the 
. Αἴ , . . ᾿ . ( . W > rig > 3 - “Ir , 2 ° 
σαν Why does he direct his fiery bolts at solitary places on the gods, who existed for their own society: 
earth? Why fling them into the sea? Why does he not warn us if an 7 ; ae 
| : ; ; Scite enim Chrysippus, ut clipet causa involucrum, vaginam autem 

he wishes us to escape the destructive agent? Why does he thunder mindless ἢ ῖ 
᾿ glad, sic praeter mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ul 


if he wishes to take us off our guard? How can he hurl his shafts in ᾿ ᾿ Hie ; | 
eas fruges atque fructus, quos terra ocignil, animanthum Causa, animan- 


7 


so many different places at one time? Why does he thunder only P : δῇ ; 
: - les aulem hominum, ut equum vehendt causa, arandt bovem, venandi ei 


when the skv is overclouded? Above all, why does Jupiter dash ; 
ὶ ] I custodiendi canem. [pse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplan- 


down his own sanctuaries and the cunningly w rought idols of the bat : 
dum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quaedam particula per- 


eods, and why does he aim chieflv at lofty summits?’ eae ; ; 
? : wee ; * ae 760." Praeclar CHM Chrysippus, celera nala esse Aominum Causa el 

In arguing for the existence and providence ol the gods, the its oe 
; ᾿ ᾿ ὙΠ deorum. eos autem communilalis ef δοσιοία δ suae.” 
Stoics placed much reliance on their doctrine of final causes. The 
subordination of means to ends was to them an obvious fact in all Naturally a system of philosophy which refers all phenomena to 
the minute details of the world’s career. Cleanthes supported his accidental causes would spurn any teleological theory. Accordinel\ 


argument tor the existence of the gods by this form of proof, the we find Lucretius saving: 


most significant of his utterances on this subject being: 


Dicere porro hominum causa voluisse parare 


Ut, st quis nm domum aliquam aul in gymnasium aus in for um veneril, 
at . : , Praeclaram mundi nalturam proplereaque 
cum videat omnium rerum rationem, modum, disciplinam, non possi ea | 
. ; aaa ; 4 Adlaudabile opus dtvom laudare decere 
sine causa frert tudicare, sed esse aliquem intellegal, qui praesil ef cut . 
is δ ὦ Ν᾽ . ᾿ P Lele? num@gue pulare aique immortale fulurum 
pareatur, mullo Magis in fantis motioniobus ltantisque Vu isstludinibus, lam ; : , - 

Nec fas esse, deum quod sit ratione velusta 


multarum rerum alque tantarum ordinibus, in quibus nihil umquam in- | Pre 
Gentibus humanis fundaltum perpeluo aevo, 





PNCHNA οἰ mfpnila vVeluUsSTAS meniila sil. απ αἰ necesse CPST ab aliqua menle . 
: Solicittare suis ulla τὴ ex sedibus umquam 


fantos naturae molus gubernart.” A 
Nec verbis vexare οἱ ab imo evertere summa, 


The argument for providence is as pertinent as that for the exist- | . 
( elera de LENE TE C Aan adfingere 67 addi re. Memmi. 
᾿ 6 ol e oods: ' 
ANCE the g ΓΑ ΡΝ 

Namque αἰ nmaturam esse censent vim quandam sne ratione crentem 


Molus 12 corportbus nNeCeSSaYIOS, ali Que aD pari ipem ralionis alque Cicero s Ip urean ex positor presents what he evidently regards ‘ 


ordinis tamquam via progredientem declarantemque, quid cuiusque rel Causa insoluble dilemma: 


efficial, quid sequatur, cuius sollertiam nulla ars, nulla manus, nemo op- 
ifex consequi posstt imitando; ceminis enim vim esse tantam, ul td, 1 De Natura 
/b., 14, 37- 
De Finibus, 


VY. 156-165. 


29 
. 


2Cicero. De Natura Deorum, Il, §, 15. 











116 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


An haec. ut fere dicttis, hominum causa a deo constitula sunt Sap- 
renhumaue δ Propler paucos teitur tanta est facta rerum molitio. An 
suliorumP Al primum causa non fuil, cur de inprobis bene mereretur, 


ae 
CeO « 


To Impose upon the eods, moreover, the premeditation involved 
in adapting the processes of nature to definite ends would be incom- 
patible with their happiness. What could induce them to assume 
such burdens? What injury should we have suffered if we had’ never 
been born? Whence did the σοί ϑ derive their con eption of man in 
order to create him?* ‘These are questions which Luc retius answers 
by denying the participation of the eods in mundane affairs, and by 


re-asserting his favorite thesis of the fortuitous concourse of atoms. 


Namque ita multa modis mullis primordia rerum 
Ex infinito iam tempore percita δία 
Pondertbusque suis consuerunt con Wa ferri 
Omnimodisque cou ( alque omnia peri nf 7147 0. 
Cuaecum@ue miler se possent congressa creare, 

ζ 7 non sit mirum, st in lalis disposituras 
Deciderunt quoque οἱ in talis venere mealus, 


Qualibus haec rerum gerilur nunc summa novando.” 


Again, he asserts in the most unequivocal language his hostility to 
the doctrine that the functions of the body were originally created 
for the uses to which they have been placed. Experience, on the 
contrary, taught the use of these organs long after they had been 


constructed. Appliances of war and peace were invented for defin- 


ite purposes, but the Senses and limbs of the human body, unlike 


swords, shields, cups and beds, were created without any final 


Causc. 


͵ ) 


Nil ideo guoniam nalumst in corpore ul uli 


j ; eT, ! 
Possenmus, sed quod 2aluImMst ul 2) 7 ΟΝ USUI, 


12)» Natura Deorum, |, 28. 
7V, 1606 SO. 

3 /b., 157-194. 

*1V, 823-57. 








THE STOICS. 117 
But while the Epicureans denounced the doctrine of divine prov- 
idence, they were not averse to a dispassionate veneration of the 
cods. The existence of deities they could not deny without being 
false, as we have seen, to their principle that every impression of the 
soul has its origin in objective reality. Deficient of any power to 
‘nterfere in the affairs of men, the gods were nevertheless to be adored 
as beings of purity, holiness and eternal peace. Epicurus himself 1s 
praised for his piety. 
τῆς μὲν yap πρὸς θεοὺς ὁσιότητος Kal πρὸς πατρίδα φιλίας ἄλεκτος ἣ διάθεσις." 
His followers did not disdain to engage in religious ceremonies, 
and Cicero declares that, while Epicureans were hostile to traditional 
religion in theory, they were in repeated instances distinctly super- 
stitious. 
Novi ego Epicureos omnia sigilla venerantes; quamquam wudeo non 
nullis vidert Lpicurum, ne in offensionem Atheniensium caderet, ver bis 


reliquisse deos, ré Si s/ulisse. . 


In the elaborate and truly poetic phrasing of the myth of Kybele 


Lucretius appears to lend some countenance to the popular religion. 


> } 


But he is not a sincere expositor ot the theology of the people, but 
a satirist, parodying the mode of accommodating physical facts to 
the traditional mythology of the ancient Greeks adopted by the 
Stoics. This is apparent from the declaration at the end of the 


passage: 


| Diogenes Laertius, X, 10. 

2 De Natura Deorum, 1, 85. We have trustworthy evidence that Cicero, who 
has so fully presented the Epicurean case against the Stoics, derived his materials 
directly from Philodemus. From the legible remnants of this teacher found in the 
Volumina IHerculanensia, it becomes quite apparent that Cicero took the body of 
Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, and appropriated it to his own uses. Mayor (De Natura 
Deorum, Introduction, pp. XLIT1, 1.271.) has given a strong putting of the case, 
from which we abridge the following points of resemblance between Cicero and 
Philodemus: 1. Particular citations from the writings of opponents, such as Xen- 
ophon, Antisthenes, Aristotle, Chrysippus, Diogenes of Babylon. 2. Divisions 
of the two documents. (a) Criticism of popular mythology. (4) Criticism of the 
older philosophers. Exposition of Epicurean theology. 3. Similar lists in 
Cicero and Philodemus of philosophers, following much the same order. These 
are arranged in parallel columns by Diels (Dox oraphi Graeci. pp. 5371-50), and 


‘ford a striking confirmation of the theory that Cicero used Philodemus freely. 





CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Flic siquis mare Neplunum Cereremque vocare 
Constituit fruges et Bacchi nomine abuh 

Mavolt quam laticis proprium proferre vocamen, 
Concedamus ut hic lterrarum adictitet orbem 

Esse deum matrem, dum vera re famen tps 


Religione animum turpi contingere parca. 


The true animus of Lucretius is seen in. the lines immediately pre- 
ceding, in which he proclaims the doctrine of the happiness and 
supreme repose of the gods, who rest in blissful security unmoved by 
the prayers and miseries of mankind.* The absurd length to which 
the Stoics carried their method of allegorical interpretation, an am- 
ple illustration of which we have in Cicero’s exposition of the sub- 
ject,* justified the warmth of Lucretius’ satire. For with an elasticity, 
which to a man as earnest as Lucretius seemed insincerity, the Stoics 
in a derivative sense invested with the prerogatives of deity stars, 
vears. months, seasons, air, earth, fire, water, fruits, wine, etc., 
then great heroes, and finally the very qualities which dignify spirit- 


ual beings, hope, truth, freedom, honor, virtue, justice, love, ete. 


With marvellous facility, therefore, Stoicism could assimilate to itself 


the conceptions of conventional polytheism. The Epicurean, on 


the other hand, was willing to give a poetic interpretation to the an- 


thropomorphic ideas of the people, and by reason of his assumption of 


innumerable gods, was able to bring himself into sympathetic rela- 
tions with persons adhering to the traditional cult, while at the same 
time he successfully undermined the whole scheme of the popular 
religion by his rationalistic explanations. Lucretius consents to call 
the earth the mother of the gods, and, as we have seen, permits the 
names Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, to be employed for the sea, corn 


and wine. But he emphatically asserts that Epicurus, whose philos- 


ophy emancipates men from superstition, is more deserving Οἱ divine 


honors than Ceres, Liber and Hercules, the last mentioned being 


especially revered by the Stoics.’* 


1 TI, 652 7° 

ΤΙ, 640-51. 

3 De Natura Deorum, 11, 40-44; 59-70. 
‘V, I-54. 








THE STOICS. I1g 


The popular faith was supported by the Stoics on account of its 
practical value. It constituted in their judgment an effective check 
to the evil passions of humanity. But Epicureans regarded the tra- 
ditional religion as vicious in its influence upon character. The 
pernicious ethical results of the prevalent superstition touching the 
gods evoked the bitterest hostility of Lucretius. The cowardice, 
sycophancy and crime which the fear of deity engendered were suf- 
ficient, he felt, to condemn the accepted theology. With a passion- 
ate earnestness which is born of his enthusiasm for humanity he 
smites with terrific energy the false-hearted zeal which would destroy 
innocent life to appease the wrath of jealous gods. The tragic story 
of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia rouses him to a fury of denunciation. ' 
It is impossible not to sympathize with his hatred of a religion that 
could engender such wrongs. Impiety does not consist, as he de- 


clares, in rejecting but in respecting such a faith. 


Nec pietas ullast velaium saepe vidert 
Vertier ad lapidem atque omnis accedere ad aras, 
Nec procumbere humi prostratum et pandere palmas 
Ante deum delubra, nec aras sanguine multo 
Spargere quadrupedum, nec volis neclere vola, 


Sed mage pacata posse omnia mente tuert.* 
And this sentiment Epicurus expresses with great clearness: 


ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας 


θεοῖς προσάπτων. 


It may not be amiss, however, to observe that the invocation of 
a popular deity at the beginning of his poem* by one who so fiercely 
assails conventional religion is an apparent incongruity, to explain 
which has taxed the ingenuity of the acutest critics. 

Yhe ethical purpose of the Stoic was practically identical with 
that of the Epicurean. Consequently Lucretius finds little occasion of 


conflict with his chief philosophic rivals on this score. He does, 


17, ὅο-ΙΟΙ. 
ἐν, 1106--"201 
᾿ Diogenes La 
41, 1-40. 





120 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


“~ 


however, arraign the followers of Zeno somewhat sharply on the 


cround of their doctrine of the apathy of the wise man. Stoicism 


required the utter suppression of the ernotions for the attainment of 


virtue. Ideally the wise man is devoid of anger, fear, envy, shame, 
care, pity; he is exempt from all passions, appetites, enthusiasms. 
Emotions are perturbations of mental equilibrium. If permitted to 
continue they finally develop into incurable diseases of the soul." 
The ‘wise man, therefore, must be simply emotionless. Virtue 15 
apathy. φασὶ δὲ καὶ ἀπαθῆ εἶναι τὸν σοφὸν, διὰ τὸ ἀνέμπτωτον." Right 
reason, which is another name for philosophy, will enable men 
to reach this estate. With such teaching Lucretius takes issue. 
Reason, he admits, will achieve much, but it will never altogether 


obliterate a man’s distinctive characteristics. 


Sic hominum genus est. Quamvis doctrina politos 
Constitual pariter quosdam, tamen la relinguil 
Naturae cutusque animt vestigia prima. 

Nec radicttus evelli mala posse putandumst, 

Ouin proclivius hic tras decurrat ad acris, 

Tile metu citius paulo templetur, al ille 

Tertius acctpiat gquaedam clementius aequo. 

Inque alis rebus multis differe necessest 

Naluras hominum varias moresque sequac ἊΝ 
Quorum ego nunc nequeo Caecas exponere Causas, 
Nec reperire figuratum tol nomina quol sunt 


Principis, unde haec orttur vartantta rerum.” 


At the same time a life truly god-like is possible to the philos- 
opher. So taught Epicurus, the master. 

ταῦτα οὖν Kal τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς πρός 
[τε] τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῴ, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ἵήσεις 
δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῴ {ww ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις 


ἀγαθοῖς. 


1 Diogenes Laeriius, 


+ Diogenes Laertius, 











> 


ὩΣ 


" 


THE STOICS., 
o believed Lucretius the disciple. 


[ilud in his rebus videor firrmare potesse, 
Usque adeo naturarum vestigna lingut 
Parvola, quae nequeat ratio depellere nobis, 


Ut nil inpediat dignam dis degere vitam.' 


THE END. 

















NIVERSITY LIBRARIES 


HUN 


0685561 


Mm 


“ Ἂ 
j i 


τσ 


41 L936 




















